The Heritage Instead of History Crowd Shows Their Ignorance Again

I found this gem on the group Brooks Simpson calls, “The Gift That Keeps On Giving.”  My comments in brackets [] and underlined.

Just a few things I’m sure Spielburg didn’t mention in his movie…

——————–

[An admission he hasn’t seen the movie (setting aside the fact that he can’t spell Spielberg’s name correctly) and is commenting on something on which he has no information–par for the course for the Heritage Instead of History Crowd.]

——————–

Lincoln’s law partner states that, “Mr. Lincoln coveted honor and was eager for power. He was impatient of any interference that delayed or obstructed his progress.
——————–
[This is a plagiarism of George Edmonds’ claim in his 1904 book, Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South, 1861-1865.  This is probably one of the falsehoods.  Edmonds claims this comes from William Herndon’s book.  A quick survey of Herndon’s book yields no such claim.  Searching on the Google Books version of the book for the word “power” elicits no such claim. 
This claim is most likely fabricated by Mr. Edmonds, unless I missed it somehow.  Additionally, even if true, so what?  Show me a politician who doesn’t want power.  Without power you can’t implement your program and keep your promises to your constituents.  Show me someone in the middle of the 19th Century who didn’t covet honor.  Shall I quote Robert E. Lee, saying he would sacrifice anything, save honor, to preserve the Union?]
——————–
He stood in direct conflict to the ideas of the founding fathers; they would not have supported Lincoln’s economic policies of protectionism and the idea of a stronger central government.
——————–
[Here he shows his ignorance of the Founding Fathers.  Let’s consult George Washington’s prescription, for example. “A survey of this correspondence and of his official career indicates that the dominant note in the political thinking of Washington, both before and after 1789, was his unwavering belief that only a strong central government, able to determine and enforce national policies, would enable the United States to assume its appropriate position among the nations of the world.” [Harold W. Bradley, “The Political Thinking of George Washington,” Journal of Southern History, Vol XI, No. 4, Nov, 1945, p. 472]“As commander of the army, Washington felt a natural sympathy for the plight of his unpaid men, and while counseling them against rash measures he urged Congress and the states to recognize the services of the army by making provision for the payment of the money due the soldiers. It was the states, he believed, which were delinquent in this matter rather than Congress, and he felt for the states the same distrust that he felt for private debtors who refused to honor their obligations.” [Ibid.]

Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton, “No man in the United States is, or can be more deeply impressed with the necessity of reform in our present Confederation than myself. No man perhaps has felt the bad effects of it more sensibly; for to the defects thereof, & want of Powers in Congress may justly be ascribed the prolongation of the War & consequently the Expences occasioned by it. More than half the perplexities I have experienced in the course of my command, and almost the whole of the difficulties & distress of the Army, have their origin here.” [Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 31 Mar 1783]

So he clearly saw the necessity of a strong, central federal government. Three months later he repeated this theme in his “Circular to State Governments,” in which he wrote, “There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

“1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head. “2ndly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice. “3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and “4thly. The prevalence of the pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.”

“Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following propositions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensible to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithfull [sic] and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly.”

“I could demonstrate to every mind open to conviction, that in less time and with much less expence than has been incurred, the War might have been brought to the same happy conclusion, if the resources of the Continent could have been properly drawn forth, that the distresses and disappointments which have very often occurred, have in too many instances, resulted more from a want of energy, in the Continental Government, than a deficiency of means in the particular States. That the inefficiency of measures, arising from the want of an adequate authority in the Supreme Power, from a partial compliance with the Requisitions of Congress in some of the States, and from a failure of punctuality in others, while it tended to damp the zeal of those which were more willing to exert themselves; served also to accumulate the expences of the War, and to frustrate the best concerted Plans.” [George Washington, “Circular to State Governments,” 8 June 1783]

The Founding Fathers experimented with a weak central government in the form of the Articles of Confederation, and Washington showed very clearly the reason why the Articles failed and had to be replaced by the US Constitution, which did feature a strong central government.  The idea that the confederates were rebelling against a strong central government is pure lost cause bunk.  The slave owners were very happy with a very strong central government if it was in service of the institution of slavery.]

——————–
They would have choked at the idea of invading the southern states to “save” the union.
——————–
[Once again, he shows complete ignorance of the Founding Fathers or American History.  He has obviously never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion, where Washington put down a rebellion with troops in Pennsylvania.  Thomas Jefferson wrote of the ease of using naval power to enforce the laws:  “It has been so often said, as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the Confederation to enforce anything; for example, contributions of money.  It was not necessary to give them that power expressly; they have it by the law of nature.  When two parties make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it.  Compulsion was never so easy as in our case, where a single frigate would soon levy on the commerce of any State the deficiency of its contributions.”  [Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 4 Aug 1787]  The Founding Fathers believed in enforcing the law, and they would do so with military force if necessary.]
——————–
The war itself was fought over economic issues.
——————–
[For the confederacy, it was the economic issue of the huge investment in slaves.  For the Federals, it was preserving the Union and the Constitution in the first half of the war.  In the second half of the war, the preservation of slavery was added to preserving the Union as a major war objective.]
——————–
Lincoln did not care about slavery and said repeatedly that it was not the cause of the war.
——————–
[Again, showing complete and total ignorance.  Lincoln was consistently antislavery from his early days in the Illinois legislature to the Presidency.  To say he didn’t care about slavery is either to flat-out lie or to confess the person knows nothing about Lincoln.  As to Lincoln saying it was not the cause of the war, “One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.”  That’s from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.]
——————–
 This was confirmed by congress through the Crittenden Johnson resolution of July 1861.
——————–
[Here he shows again his lack of knowledge and understanding.  The confederates were very clear that they were protecting slavery.  He wants us to believe there was only one side in the war, and that the goal of that one side, early in the war, was the only factor.  The Crittenden-Johnson resolution was passed to allay the fears of the Border States that the Federal Government was out to get rid of slavery.  Two weeks after this resolution passed, Lincoln signed the First Confiscation Act, authorizing the Federal Government to take slaves away from rebels.]
——————–
The war was actually caused by the invasion of 11 States that sought the same rights as their forefathers, to governed by something that had the consent of the people…
——————–
[He apparently has never heard of Fort Sumter, nor has he read the declarations of causes published by seceding states, which all stated they were seceding to protect slavery.]
——————–
Lincoln said in his inaugural speech that there would be no invasions accept to collect taxes.
——————–
[Leaving aside his inability to distinguish between “except” and “accept,” he has either never read the Inaugural Address or he’s lying.  Here’s what Lincoln said:  “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.”  Lincoln is saying he will enforce the law, and he will hold, occupy, and possess what belongs to the Government.  This is actually a conciliatory gesture toward the secessionist states, telling them that they had time for the hotheads to cool off and realize their mistake.]
——————–
American Heritage magazine in 1996 said that tariffs were a prime cause of the Civil War.
——————–
[Highly doubtful, considering Bruce Catton was the editor at that time and he would not have agreed with that claim, so while it’s possible one writer may have made that claim, it would not be the editorial stand of the magazine.  This is probably a fabrication.]
[Edit:  When I first read this, I read “1996” as “1966,” so my comment about Bruce Catton was wrong.  But I still maintain it is highly doubtful that it was the position of American Heritage magazine that tariffs were a prime cause of the Civil War.  As Jim Epperson points out in his comment, there may well have been an article written by someone who attempted to make that argument, since the magazine strives to publish various viewpoints, but that would be a far cry from saying “American Heritage said tariffs were a prime cause of the Civil War.”]
——————–
Two weeks after Sumter Lincoln ordered a blockade of the South claiming tariff collection as his only motive.
——————–
[This is another false claim.  Lincoln did not make any such claim.]
——————–
There was no income tax in 1860, the government was funded by tariffs. The South being an agricultural society conservatively accounted for about 70% of the nation’s imports and therefore paid at least 70% of the nation’s taxes, yet the South only represented about 33% of the nation’s population.
——————–
[Another falsehood.  I’ve already addressed this particular bit of ignorance here.]
——————–
To add insult, most of the taxes collected in the South were spent in the North on roads, bridges, canals and railroads.
——————–
[I see this asserted quite a bit, but nobody ever provides the evidence to support it.  There were a large number of Federal forts in southern states.  I suppose he thinks those forts were simply donated.  I suppose he thinks there were no railroads in the south, no canals in the south.]
——————–
Lincoln was a sectional candidate, his New Republican Party was the only political party that was exclusively Northern in its affiliation and had virtually no Southern support.
——————–
[There were Republicans in southern states.  Of course, not many, but the Republican Party was not exclusively “Northern.”  It was also Western and had a small presence in the Border States, which were part of the south.]
——————–
Elected by less than 40% of the popular vote, he did not even carry Philadelphia and New York two of the North’s largest cities.
——————–
[Let’s assume the claim he didn’t carry both Philadelphia or New York is true.  So what?]
——————–
In the North he became an aloof dictator, shutting down over 200 newspapers that questioned his policies, he imprisoned Maryland legislators on suspicion of Southern sympathies, he deported his most vocal opponent in Congress, and violated the 2nd Amendment by disarming the border states.
——————–
[Again, he betrays his own ignorance.  Newspapers were not merely suppressed for expressing doubts about the legality and morality of the Federal war effort. Plenty of newspapers expressed such doubts without being suppressed.  My source on this subject is James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. According to Randall, “A striking fact concerning the subject of journalistic activity during the Civil War was the lack of any real censorship.”  [p. 481]The fact is that military secrets were indeed published by newspapers: “The location of Grant’s guns secretly placed against Vicksburg in 1863 was published; his proposed concentration upon City Point in July, 1864 was revealed; Sherman’s objectives in his Georgia march and the disposition of his various corps were proclaimed; full details concerning the land and sea expedition against Wilmington, NC, in December, 1864, were supplied. Northern newspapers practically functioned as Confederate spies in Union camps, for copies of these journals were easily obtained by Southern generals.”  [pp. 486-487]In the case of shutting down newspapers, Randall tells us, “Where the activities of a newspaper produced too grave a menace, it sometimes happened that the newspaper itself was ‘suppressed,’ which usually meant that by military action its publication was temporarily suspended.  Cases in which this drastic method of press control was applied were fairly numerous, although it is also true that throughout the war the most flagrant disloyalty was suffered to continue in many prominent papers.”  [p. 492] Randall goes into detail on the suppression of the Chicago Times and the New York World.

The suppression of the Chicago Times was related with the Vallandigham case, with the Times supporting Vallandigham and being suppressed by General Burnside.

“According to Secretary Welles, the President and every member of the Cabinet regretted Burnside’s act.  On the day the order was issued Stanton directed a letter to Burnside expressing the President’s disapproval of the action of General Hascall who had interfered in various ways with certain newspapers in Indiana.  He advised Burnside that the dissatisfaction within his department would only be increased ‘by the presence of an indiscreet military officer who will … produce irritation by assuming military powers not essential to the preservation of the public peace.’  Having written thus, Stanton added the following significant postscript after word of the order concerning the Times had been received:

” ‘Since writing the above letter the President has been informed that you have suppressed the publication or circulation of the Chicago Times in your department.  He directs me to say that in his judgment it would be better for you to take an early occasion to revoke that order.’ ”  [pp. 494-495]

The New York World was suppressed because it published a bogus proclamation it claimed was made by President Lincoln which talked about recent reverses, asked for a national day of public humiliation and prayer, and called for 400,000 new troops.  While Griffith no doubt would not only condone but praise a newspaper for lying and publishing a false proclamation, this was an act deliberately designed to hurt the Union war effort, and thus was a part of levying war against the United States.  The editor in question was lucky he was not brought up on treason charges, but instead the administration took the more measured approach of suppressing the paper for three days.

As Randall tells us, “In seeking a just interpretation of the question of press control during the Civil War, one must balance the immediate and practical considerations, of which the executive branch must be ever watchful, with the constitutional and legal phases of the subject.  When powerful papers were upsetting strategy by the revelation of military secrets, discrediting the Government, defaming the generals, weakening the morale of soldier and citizen, uttering disloyal sentiments, fomenting jealous antagonism among officers, and clamoring for a peace which would have meant the consummation of disunion, even the most patient administration charged with the preservation of the Union by war, would have been tempted to the use of vigorous measures of suppression.”  [p. 505]

Lincoln laid out his views to Gen. John Schofield:  “Under your recent order, which I have approved, you will only arrest individuals, and suppress assemblies, or newspapers, when they may be working palpable injury to the Military in your charge; and, in no other case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or allow it to be interfered with violently by others. In this, you have a discretion to exercise with great caution, calmness, and forbearance.”  [Lincoln to John M. Schofield, 1 Oct 1863, Collected Works, Vol 6, p. 492]

Calling Lincoln a dictator is laughable.  How many dictators stand for a free and fair election?  The deportation of Vallandigham is equally misunderstood by the Heritage Instead of History Crowd.  Vallandigham had been arrested by Burnside.  Lincoln let him out of jail and sent him to his friends in the confederacy.  I suppose they think he should have left Vallandigham in jail?  The Border States were not disarmed.  That’s a fabrication.  Some folks who were suspected of participating in guerrilla actions may have been disarmed temporarily, but that is not a violation of the Second Amendment.  If you want to see a real violation of the right to bear arms, look at Richmond under the confederacy.]

——————–
He was the consummate politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.
——————–
[Again, untrue.  Lincoln would shade his wording to match his audience, but he didn’t claim the opposite.  He made the same claims, but would support it with different reasons for different audiences.]
——————–
His Emancipation Proclamation was the most hypocritical document ever written: it freed few if any slaves; it only applied to slaves in states that were in rebellion. Lincoln had no control over the states in rebellion, he couldn’t buy a newspaper in Charleston SC, let alone free slaves there. However, slaves in states where he did have control, those he did not free. For them it was as if no proclamation had ever been written.
——————–
[Again, a virtual admission he doesn’t have a clue about actual history.  The prevailing constitutional interpretation of the time was that the Federal Government could not affect slavery in the states.  The only reason Lincoln could issue the EP was by using his war powers as Commander-in-Chief, since slaves were an important source of labor to support the rebel war effort.   Over 40,000 slaves in areas under Union control on January 1, 1863 and not excepted in the EP were immediately freed.  As the Union army marched from that day forward, it enforced the EP everywhere it went, enforcing the freedom of the slaves in those areas in which it marched.  It freed every slave in the confederacy.  It just required the Union army to enforce that freedom for the majority of those slaves.]
——————–
He himself admitted that the proclamation had No legal or Constitutional Justification.
——————–
[This is a fabrication.  Lincoln stated his constitutional justification was as part of his war powers as Commander-in-Chief.]
——————–
He was adamantly opposed to racial equality, actually using the words “superior and inferior” to describe the “appropriate” relation between the white and black races. See his campaign speech in Charleston Illinois in 1858.
——————–
[This is another outright lie.  Lincoln said that IF one race HAD to be in the superior position and the other in the inferior position, he would, like anyone else, prefer that his own race occupy the superior position.  That is a far cry from the claim above.]
——————–
He opposed giving blacks the right to vote, to serve on juries, or to intermarry with whites.
——————–
[See his last speech, given 11 April 1865 in which he supported a limited franchise for African-Americans.  Unlike our benighted friend here, Lincoln had the capacity to learn and to grow.]
——————–
He supported the legal rights of slave owners and the Fugitive Slave Act.
——————–
[Oh, he supported the law as written.  What a despot! No confederate would ever support those, would they? [/sarcasm] The stupidity and hypocrisy of the Heritage Instead of History Crowd knows no bounds.]
——————–
He pledged his support of a constitutional amendment (Corwin Amendment) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.
——————–
[In the states where it existed.  That was nothing more than the current constitutional interpretation of the time.  The vast majority of the people at the time believed the Federal Government could not interfere with slavery in the states.  The Corwin Amendment, though, didn’t say anything about the expansion of slavery into the territories.]
——————–
He was a railroad industry lobbyist who championed corporate welfare.
——————–
[He was not a lobbyist.  He was an attorney who sometimes represented the railroads.  I’d like to see the evidence where he “championed corporate welfare.”  Given this guy’s track record, it’s probably either a fabrication or a misstatement.]
——————–
He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained their freedom.
——————–
[Yes, this was the Matson case, where Lincoln lost due to an interpretation that had earlier been argued before the Supreme Court by a lawyer named Abraham Lincoln.  Apparently this guy thinks that lawyers who defend murderers are either murderers themselves or approve of murderers.
“Like most other attorneys, Lincoln and Herndon took on whatever clients came their way.  They defended persons charged with murder, burglary, assault, embezzlement, and almost every other kind of crime.  Sometimes their clients were innocent and sometimes they were guilty, but the partners felt that all were entitled to be represented.  Nor was Lincoln squeamish about the social implications of the cases that he argued.  In 1841 he appeared before the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Bailey v.
Cromwell, which concerned the attempted sale of a young black woman, Nance, in Tazewell County.  The court followed his reasoning in ruling:  “the presumption of law was, in this State, that every person was free, without regard to color. … The sale of a free person is illegal.”  But six years later he appeared for Robert Matson, who was trying to recover his runaway slaves in Coles County.  Matson had brought his Kentucky slaves across the Ohio River to work on his farm in southern Illinois.  When the slaves ran away and, with the backing of local abolitionists, brought suit for their freedom, on the ground that the Northwest Ordinance forbade the introduction of slavery into the state of Illinois, Matson employed Lincoln, along with Usher F. Linder, to defend him.  Characteristically, Lincoln admitted his opponents’ main argument that the slaves were free if Matson had brought them to Illinois for permanent settlement, but he invoked the right of transit, which the courts had guaranteed to slaveholders who were taking their slaves temporarily into free territory.  He placed great stress on Matson’s public declaration at the time he brought the slaves into Illinois, that he did not intend the slaves to remain permanently in Illinois and insisted that ‘no counter statement had ever been made publicly or privately by him.’  The circuit court ruled against Lincoln and his client, who, it was reported, left immediately for Kentucky without paying his attorneys’ fees.  Neither the Matson case nor the Cromwell case should be taken as an indication of Lincoln’s views on slavery; his business was law, not morality.”  [David Herbert Donald, Lincoln, pages 103-104]
Lincoln was in the business of arguing for his clients just like any other lawyer.]
——————–
He advocated sending all blacks back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti – anywhere but the U.S.
——————–
[His plan for colonization was voluntary only, and after the Final Emancipation Proclamation he never mentioned it in public again.  Colonization was a part of the program for emancipation.  Once he decided on military emancipation, there was no longer any need to talk about colonization because it was no longer needed.]
——————–
He opposed the extension of slavery into the territories so that “free white people” would not have to compete with blacks for jobs.
——————–
[That is the argument he used in Southern Illinois.  In Central and Northern Illinois he stressed that slavery should not be extended into the territories as a precursor to the extinction of slavery.]
——————–
He opposed black citizenship in Illinois and supported the state’s constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state.
——————–
[He followed the law.  I don’t see any evidence he specifically supported the anti-immigration clause.]
——————–
He was the head of the Illinois Colonization Society, which advocated the use of state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that resided within the state.
——————–
[Voluntary colonization only, not deportations, and as an integral part of a program of eventual abolition of slavery.  Here we see again the Heritage Instead of History Crowd has no honesty.]
——————–
He sent troops to New York City to put down a draft riot by shooting hundreds of them in the streets.
——————–
[So what?  He enforced the law.  Democrats in New York fomented violence against African-Americans, who were attacked and in some cases lynched.  Troops were sent to quell the riots, and it took gunfire to do so, which is not Lincoln’s fault but rather the fault of the rioters and the confederate-sympathizing Democrats who egged them on.]
——————–
He was an enemy of free-market capitalism. He started a war over tax collection that ended up killing 800,000 Americans and wounding and maiming hundreds of thousands more.
——————–
[This is a complete and total lie, and anyone who believes it knows nothing about this time period.]
——————–
He promoted the lie that no such thing as state sovereignty ever existed to “justify” his invasion and conquest of the Southern states.
——————–
[He followed the US Supreme Court’s rulings.  See here.]
——————–
He refused to meet with Confederate peace commissioners before the war to work out a peaceful compromise.
——————–
[He refused to surrender to an illegal action.]
——————–
The South was willing to pay it’s portion of the national debt and pay for all property confiscated by the South.
——————–
[There is no evidence of this, and their actions were illegal anyway.  Lincoln’s charge was to take care that the laws were faithfully executed.]
——————–
He provoked Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee to secede by launching a military invasion of their sister states. All four of these states had previously voted not to secede but now reversed themselves.
——————–
[Most likely, Jefferson Davis did the provoking by ordering the firing on Fort Sumter.  More on this in a later post.]
——————–
Although he used religious rhetoric in his speeches when it was politically expedient, Lincoln almost certainly was not a Christian.
——————–
[Not that it matters if he was or wasn’t, but he did question beliefs based on faith without evidence.  So what?  Are people who are not Christians by definition bad?  Gee, I wonder why neoconfederates get accused of being anti-Semitic–not.]
——————–
Lincoln struggled with severe depression
——————–
[So what?  He had a melancholy, but Joshua Wolf Schenck’s thesis that Lincoln suffered from clinical depression remains unproven.  In any event, does it really matter?]
——————–
Lincoln admirer Carl Marx sent him a congratulatory letter after his reelection in 1864; in which he stationed armed guards at polling places to intimidate voters.
——————–
[Guards were placed at some polling places to prevent disruption by confederate agents.]
——————–
On giving blacks the rights to full citizenship Lincoln stated on September 18 1858, “If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be against the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it.”
——————–
[Stated in the Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, in Charleston, Illinois.  Again, Lincoln, unlike the writer of the above, had the capacity to learn and to grow.  See his April 11, 1865 speech.  Neoconfederates think that because they don’t have the ability to learn nobody does.]
——————–
Finally, by his own words Lincoln incriminates himself, in his first inauguration speech when he says; “We denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes.”
——————–
[So what?  He’s talking about a LAWLESS invasion.]
——————–
We find the definition of treason in Article III section 3 of the Constitution where it states that “Treason against the United States shall consist only, in levying war against them…” Lincoln was never president of more than half the country and no matter how you slice it, Union soldiers were not fighting to free slaves and Confederates were not fighting to keep them.
——————–
[This person shows how incredibly stupid he really is.  Lincoln was the President of the entire United States.  Union soldiers, in the last half of the war, were indeed fighting to free slaves because in the last half of the war that was one of the war goals.  In addition, some Union soldiers were fighting to free slaves from the very beginning.  Not a majority, but some of them.  Every confederate soldier, because they fought for the confederacy, fought to achieve the goals of the confederacy.  The confederacy’s goal was to preserve slavery.]
——————–
There is nothing in the Constitution saying secession is illegal.
——————–
[By the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution and the Laws of the United States remain supreme law of the land, no matter what a single state may say about it.  A single state does not have the power to nullify the Constitution or the Laws of the United States within its borders because of the Supremacy Clause.  Unilateral secession, then, is unconstitutional.]
——————–
Therefore, logic tells us there must be another reason.
——————–
[This guy knows neither history nor logic.]
——————–
Lincoln said his sole purpose for invading the South was to preserve the Union. Why force states to remain in the Union that did not want to be there? Why not just let the South go? Taxes that’s why.
——————–
[The law, that’s why.]
——————–
“Let the South go!” he said “where then shall we get our revenue?” (Bledsoe Treatise is J. Davis a traitor?)
——————–
[Fabrication.  He never said it.]
——————–
 Famed abolitionist Fredrick Douglas gave a scathing indictment of Lincoln’s racial policies in an April 14th 1876 speech, at which President Grant was in attendance. “He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the coloured people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.” Hardly seems the description of a Great Emancipator.
——————–
[Stupid people don’t understand the English language, and this person is stupid.  Let’s look at Douglass’ speech–the entire speech.  Read the context in which he said those words, and read what he had to say after those words.
As we can see, Douglass wasn’t saying what the writer of the above thinks he was saying.]
——————–
——————–
——————–
12 people on the Gift That Keeps On Giving liked this post, showing they were as clueless as the writer was.
Here are some comments posted on the group:
——————–
“Very good post.Hope you do not mind if I share.Will help me with a discussionon whether Lincoln was the greatest or the worst. So far i’m the only one that says worst. Need all the help I can get!”
——————–
“I agree he was the worse.”
——————–
“He was most certain not the man history has made him out to be…….but all our history has been sanitized to make America look great……..”
——————–
“I love it Robert I knew most of it but there was some stuff I didn’t know”
——————–
——————–
——————–
It’s a poor commentary on history education in the United States that people could have such a lack of historical understanding.

6 comments

  1. jfepperson · · Reply

    American Heritage did run an article in the 90s (Catton had been dead for around 20 yrs) by John Steele Gordon (?) which did argue, poorly (IMO), that tariffs were an issue in secession.

    1. Thanks for the information, Jim. I’ll have to take a look to see if I have that issue. I don’t recall reading such an article, so I might have missed it.

      1. jfepperson · · Reply

        Upon more reflection, the article was more a history of the tariff, which included an almost throw-away comment about its supposed role in secession. I may have written a letter in response.

        1. I’ve checked my issues and my 1996 issues don’t include that one. I’ll have to check the website.

          1. Jim, I checked the website and found the article in question. As I knew would be the case, it’s not the position of American Heritage at all. Here’s the article and the comment: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/american-taxation?page=5

            You’re right. It was a throwaway comment. Gordon himself has no credentials as a historian. He does write on financial and business matters, but he has no expertise in Civil War history. His bio is here:
            http://www.johnsteelegordon.com/bio.html

            The claim that American Heritage said it is wrong and reveals the individual’s lack of understanding of the magazine and its editorial policies and stances.

  2. jfepperson · · Reply

    Thanks for the link to the article. I totally agree about Gordon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: