Lincoln and the "central idea of America"
From: vaproto@optonline.net
To: aguelzo@gettysburg.edu
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444165804578008411397033822.html
Dear Mr. Aguelzo,
Sadly, you have bought into the Lincoln myth hook, line and sinker. A superb wordsmith, Lincoln was able to hide his unconstitutional and criminal behavior including his many war crimes with fine words, but his actions – as with all "actions" – spoke far louder than his glorious verbiage.
Lincoln had no desire to "interfere" with slavery. There are more than sufficient quotes from the man himself to doubt that fact. As well, Lincoln quietly pushed the Congress to offer the original 13th Amendment – the so-called "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution which would have placed slavery into that document in perpetuity. Lincoln did this because what he really wanted from the South was the MONEY the federal government received from the obscene tariffs placed upon imports, tariffs that fell mostly upon the South which paid 75%+ of the federal revenues. It was the MONEY Lincoln wanted from the South and and he was willing to have slavery forever in order to keep those revenues.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a war strategy as he himself admitted. He did not free one slave. Indeed, prior to the E. P., when a Union commander in a border state actually freed slaves held in that territory, Lincoln ordered them returned to their masters. Neither did the E.P. free slaves in any state remaining in the Union such as the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky or in Southern territory held by the Union.
So if actual emancipation was not the intention of the proclamation, what was? Simple. By "freeing" slaves in states no longer in the Union, Lincoln hoped to encourage servile insurrection such as had happened in the Nat Turner matter. If slaves rose up – especially in the cotton states where the black population was enormous – the President hoped that Southern whites serving in the Confederate army would desert and return home to protect their families. If that occurred, it would end any military response to the Northern invasion and the war would be over. But Southerners knew better. The slaves did not rise up but most remained in their homes even when the Yankees came. Often these same slaves paid with their lives at the hands of the invaders when they tried to help those with whom they had lived all their lives and whom they considered to be their own families.
As for Lincoln saving "the central idea" of America, that is even further from the truth. He destroyed the Constitution and the Republic, replacing the sovereign States and the will of the People (the consent of the governed) with a monolithic central authority, the fate of the Republic that Patrick Henry had prophysied when the Constitution was adopted. Lincoln believed in centralization. His administration and his military were filled with "48ers," Germans who fled their socialist revolutions in Europe and came to the United States. Indeed, Marx adored Lincoln for, among other things, his belief in the centralization of power in the federal government and the decrease of power outside of that institution. There are books now published which make this connection irrefutably.
And, of course, Lincoln played hob with the Constitution. Among many other things, he:
1] nullified the 10th amendment, taking powers upon himself and the central government forbidden by that Amendment.
2] declared war on those Southern states which had seceded (as was their constitutional right), the only act declared as treason in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution; as well, the power to declare war was limited to the Congress which wasn’t even in session. Even the excuse for war – the alleged unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter by the Confederate government – was a lie and a set-up as Lincoln himself admitted in letters to Agustus Fox and Otto Browning. It must be remembered that it is not the side the fires the first shot that starts a war, but the side that causes that shot to be fired – and that was the United States!
3] Lincoln suspended habeas corpus which was an act reserved for Congress alone and when Chief Justice Taney of the Supreme Court demurred, Lincoln sent along a warrant for Taney’s arrest. It was never served, but Taney and the rest of the Court realized that they were in danger of permanent incarceration without recourse as long as Lincoln was in power so, in effect, he silenced the highest court in the land.
4] Lincoln used the military to influence the election of 1864 and it may well be that his "victory" was as constitutional – and as legitimate – as his previous actions.
5] Lincoln presided over the waging of total war which included the deaths of over a million people (when you include civilians) and acts so barbarous that the European nations were aghast. Indeed, the Nazis learned a lot from and in many cases copied the actions of Lincoln’s "noble warriors."
No, Lincoln preserved nothing of the "central idea" of America. By the time he was through, America had a very different "central idea," the idea of centralization – that is, all power residing in the federal government and everything that the government wanted done considered "legal" no matter how unconstitutional! This new philosophy was further entrenched with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which changed the selection of Senators (the Upper Chamber of Congress) from a matter of the State legislatures to a direct vote such as is found in the House (the Lower Chamber of Congress). By doing this, Lincoln’s political "heirs" further degraded the position of the no longer sovereign States in the government of the nation. Of course, you must remember, that the greatest power to prevent the tyranny of the federal government was the power of the sovereign States! With that gone, nothing could stop the ever increasing power in Washington.
Mr. Aguelzo, in effect, Abraham Lincoln presided over the death of the nation founded in 1776 and brought forth a centralized empire more in keeping with that which arose in Europe than that which was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Of course, you won’t hear these facts presented in our present politically correct revisionist version of "history" – which hasn’t changed all the much from the "winner’s version" of history after the War of Secession – but that changes nothing. Ignoring the facts and the truth does not render them invalid and eternal reiteration of falsehood and myths does not gain them one inch of validity.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Valerie Protopapas
Huntington Station, New York
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Lincoln and the "central idea of America"
From: aguelzo@gettysburg.edu
To: vaproto@optonline.net
Dear Madam:
It is you, alas! who have bought into a myth. There is not the slightest shred of evidence — certainly none which could stand up as sworn testimony — that the tariff ever entered into any of Lincoln’s deliberations. His endorsement of the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural offered the South nothing that they did not have already (ie. constitutional immunity from federal control over slavery); if it were otherwise, then why did the South secede? If you are able to cite original documents in Lincoln’s hand to disprove this, I will be both enlightened and your debtor.
I would apply the same rule to your other assertions:
* Show me, please, where Lincoln ever directed his troops to return fugitive slaves to their masters. Not in someone else’s book, remember, but in Lincoln’s own words.
* Show me, please, why, if you were consigned to bondage by a slavemaster, you would not rise in insurrection. I certainly would.
* Show me, please, why it was wrong for Marx to "adore" Lincoln. Apart from the exaggeration implicit in "adored," Marx should be complimented for getting at least one thing in his life right.
* Show me, please, how successful the so-called "socialists" of the German revolutions were in introducing a socialist regime under Lincoln.
* Show me, please, in what decisions Lincoln nullified the 10th amendment, and exactly what powers are denied the federal government by that amendment.
* Show me, please, how opening fire on the U.S. flag, both on January 9, 1861 and on April 12, 1861, is not an act of treason?
* Show me, please, who "Agustus" Fox and "Otto" Browning were (I presume you mean Gustavus Vasa Fox and Orville Hickman Browning; perhaps you should look these things up first) and where Lincoln admitted that he "lied" about Ft. Sumter. He expressed relief to Browning that the Confederates had firednthe first shot and taken the onus of starting the war on themselves, but that scarcely constitutes a lie.
* Show me, please, where the Constution limits suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to Congress.
You assert that "There are books now published which make this connection irrefutably." I presume you mean books by Di Lorenzo, West, and other Lincoln-haters. Yes, thank you, I am all too well aware of them. There are also books which claim irrefutably to describe voyages with space aliens and the healing power of crystals. You have been had by a clutch of intellectual con-men; I hope you will put all such books aside.
And do, kindly, spell my name correctly.
(Dr) Allen C. Guelzo
Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era
Director, Civil War Era Studies Program
Gettysburg College
300 N. Washington Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Lincoln and the "central idea of America"
From: vaproto@optonline.net
To: aguelzo@gettysburg.edu
Dear Sir:
All the information you seek exists but frankly, I am SICK TO DEATH of you and your ilk demanding that those who disagree with you provide "sources" which you then refuse to believe anyway because they don’t agree with your viewpoint. In order of your "questions:"
Lincoln’s order to return the slaves is available in the public record – go look it up if you really want truth and not just to annoy someone who disagrees with you. I suggest looking at the war in the border states will give you this information and a great deal more, some of it none too complimentary to the federal government OR Lincoln.
Are you saying that an insurrection which leads to the murder of whites – often who have never OWNED slaves (see the Nat Turner revolt) – is an acceptable war strategy? If you are, then I fully understand WHY you love Lincoln.
It’s not "wrong" for Marx to adore Lincoln, but how would you feel if you knew that HITLER adored him too? Certainly many of the German military employed his war strategies against civilians in both World Wars. Did Marx "get it right?" As one communist (Marx) understanding another (Lincoln), I would suppose that he did. If you find that Lincoln was well received by a communist AS a communist, then again, I understand WHY you love Lincoln.
Again, these are a matter of public record, but there are several books on this including the Benson-Kennedy books on Lincoln and Marx. Of course, because you don’t like the authors and what they said, you will – as your kind always do – reject the books. But the books are well sourced and have more than enough of the PUBLIC RECORD to prove what has been alleged. Sadly, again, people like you will accept ONLY what validates your own point of view so to pretend that I could give you ANY acceptable source is nonsense.
I already pointed out the violation of the 10th Amendment when I said that Lincoln declared war – something limited to the Congress, suspended habeas corpus – something limited to the Congress, used the military to coerce elections – something even CONGRESS is not permitted to do, and so forth. READ the 10th Amendment and then read what rights and privileges ORIGINALLY given to the federal government. If you cannot figure it out after doing that, there is no hope for you.
The firing on Sumter did not constitute treason because South Carolina had constitutionally withdrawn from the Union. You cannot commit treason against a country in which you are no longer a member. If you argue as did Lincoln that these states could not constitutionally secede (an false and mendacious argument) then, as noted, the actual treason was committed by the federal government as it made war against an admitted State, South Carolina (see Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution). You cannot win on this argument. If South Carolina was OUT of the Union,IT could not commit treason. If it was IN the Union then only Lincoln and the government committed treason. One way or the other, Lincoln loses the argument.
I never said that Lincoln "lied" about Sumter. I said that he set it up to force the Confederacy to fire at the Fort in order to give him sufficient propaganda to whip up a pro-war sentiment in the North which prior thereto had been for letting the South go in peace. Lincoln admitted that he obtained his desired result at Sumter in a letter to Gustavus Fox (captain of the relief ship) on May 1st, 1861 in which he stated,
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
The “result” and the “cause of the country” that Lincoln wished to advance, was, of course, the war that the firing on Fort Sumter brought about. On July 3rd of that same year, Lincoln confided to Orville H. Browning about the plan to supply and reinforce Sumter and its actual intentions at the time.
"The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter – and it fell, and thus did more service than it otherwise could."
Just how much more proof do you need than Lincoln’s own words, "THE PLAN SUCCEEDED…" What plan other than an admission that Lincoln sent the relief ship as a means of forcing the firing on the Fort?! If he had said the plan did NOT succeed, then a point could be made that the actual plan was the relief of the Fort. But as he put it to Browning, it achieved what he intended to achieve – a war with the South.
Parenthetically, Fort Sumter didn’t even belong to the federal government! The fort that belonged to the federal government in Charleston Harbor was Fort Moultrie, which Major Anderson abandoned to move to Sumter in direct disobedience of the agreement signed by President Buchanan. Buchanan was STILL PRESIDENT when Anderson did this. Didn’t he count? What machinations had already been concocted between General of the Armies Winfield Scott and Lincoln before the man was even inaugurated! The fact of the matter is that the federal government had failed to follow the provisions of the lease with South Caroline in the matter of Fort Sumter and thus, that fort had already reverted to the State! So, in effect, South Carolina (or the Confederacy) simply fired on its own property to remove "squatters" who had been given every opportunity to remove themselves. I would say that this answers your query on Sumter – or would if you really WANTED an answer and not just to make a point however lacking in validity.
The particulars of the correct use and suspension of habeas corpus are contained in the Constitution. I daresay you can find it yourself. I notice, however, that you ask nothing about the use of the military to influence elections in the North. I wonder why.
Valerie Protopapas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: aguelzo@gettysburg.edu
To: vaproto@optonline.net
Dear Madam:
Your refusal to go to the sources is not a badge of accomplishment, but of evasion. Consider the following:
* There is no such order as you describe in "the public record." You could not find it. It does not exist.
* Because Marx said nice things about Lincoln (he also said nasty things, too) no more proves that Lincoln was a communist than the fact that alcoholics served in the Union army proves that Lincoln was an alcoholic.
* The Benson-Kennedy books are a standing joke. They are not in the slightest degree "well-sourced," and are taken seriously as history only by the sorts of people who took Bernie Madoff seriously as a financier
* South Carolina did not constitutionally withdraw from the Union, because there is no consitutional mechanism for withdrawing from the Union. Show me the article, the clause, the wording in the Constitution which describes withdrawal.
* I have read the 10th amendment. You have not. The amendment contains no specifics about what the federal and state governments do or do not do, whereas Article 1 section 10 lists a series of very specific prohibitions and restrictions on the actions of the states.
* Ft. Sumter was always the property of the Federal government. It was begun as a Third System fortification in 1829 under an act of Congress, with Congressional funding, and was always occupied by a Federal garrison (even if was only a token garrison) and flew the U.S. flag. Anderson did not disobey his orders in moving the Moultrie garrison to Sumter, because his orders specifically allowed him to use his discretion about moving the garrison if at any point he considered the garrison to be threatened.
* Since you did not bother to read the Constitution on habeas corpus, I will do it for you. It says that the write may be suspended in times of rebellion or national emergency. It does not state which branch has the authority to do so. Since mob rule in the streets of Baltimore had already cost the lives of U.S. servicemen at the time of suspension in 1861, Lincoln would have been impeachably remiss in not suspending the writ.
* Lincoln’s "plan" was this: he proposed sending an unarmed transport, with food and medicine, to Sumter, with public notification to the governor of South Carolina. Any government vicious enough to fire on an unarmed transport would show at once what its true nature was. It did.
Kindly understand that you are speaking in defense of a Confederate regime which imposed an internal passport system on its people, invented the first steeply-graduated personal income tax, levied the first conscription law on Americans, nationalized private industries, and above all reduced four million human beings to chattel slavery. Only Hitler and Stalin exceeded this regime in its brutality, hatred of freedom, and contempt for business, capital and enterprise. And yet you defend it. You seem to imagine that because the modern-day federal government has become a bloated and uncontrollable bureaucracy, that anyone in the past who opposed the federal govermment (namely, the Confederacy) occupies the same ground as those who today resist that bureaucracy. That is untrue. The Confederacy, not Lincoln’s Union, is the model for what we have to-day.
(Dr) Allen C. Guelzo
Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era
Director, Civil War Era Studies Program
Gettysburg College
300 N. Washington Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Lincoln and the "central idea of America"
From: vaproto@optonline.net
To: aguelzo@gettysburg.edu
Sir,
This is my last response to you because I know your kind and nothing provided to you would satisfy. You would say that words were taken out of context or misreported etc. etc. ad nausea.
But let me at least address one point. You say that there was no constitutional mechanism for withdrawing from the Union. That is just plain nonsense! How about the New England states and the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812? What were they doing? Playing tiddly-winks?! Of course there was! And, in fact, the right of secession was the majority opinion of lawyers and constitutional scholars until after the War of Secession. It was taught by Rawles in West Point. Indeed, Robert E. Lee stated that his opinion on the constitutionality of secession was based upon Rawles’ teachings. Then there were the three States – Virginia, Rhode Island and New York – that put secession provisions in their ratification documents to assure that if the need arose, they could leave the Union. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, there was no declaration in the Constitution of an "indissoluble union." When years later, Fitz Hugh Lee asked why if secession were not constitutional, the Constitution did not say so, he was told that had the Constitution forbidden secession nobody would have signed it! The Constitution was a contract and, in fact, it was already null and void when many states in the North violated that contract by their own behavior. The federal government simply added to the legal reasons for the Southern States to secede. Remember, Virginia and North Carolina only seceded when Lincoln demanded troops from those states in order to wage unconstitutional and treasonous war upon those states that had already seceded! As you know, once one side has violated a contract, that contract is no longer in effect for the other side.
You cannot take the "definition" of the legality and constitutionality of secession from post-war writings or from Lincoln’s topsy-turvy findings that the federal government created the states and not vice versa. Well, I shouldn’t say that you cannot, because obviously you have. However, I will say that you will never convince people who go back to the original source that your definition works.
Oh, yes, and as for the Union commanders ordered to return slaves which you seem to think I made up out of whole cloth:
On August 30, 1861 John C Fremont declared martial law in Missouri and freed slaves of Missouri Confederates. On September 11th, 1861 Lincoln ordered Fremont to rescind his order freeing some slaves in Missouri and issues a new order conforming to the Confiscation Act passed by Congress. On May 9th 1862 General David Hunter [US] freed the slaves in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. On May 19th Lincoln rescinded Hunter’s emancipation of the slaves in his department and used the opportunity to call for a gradual emancipation. On July 17, 1862 Lincoln wrote a letter to the Congressmen from the border states, warning them of his upcoming Emancipation Proclamation. In it he stated, "I do not speak of emancipation at once, but of a decision at once to emancipate gradually.”
Valerie Protopapas
