Slavery; THE Cause?

[hawglips]

Dawna, do you have a link and/or source to the full text of the letter to Eratus Corning?

Hal

[dawna]

Hal:

www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org
(Under N.Y. Democrats - Erastus Corning)

Dawna

[unionblue]

Dear Dawna,

By no stretch of the imagination did the South remain 'true' to it's own constitution in matters of freedom of the press or habeas corpus or in creating a new state out of thin air. Please check out the suspended civil liberties thread under this section of the board and you will see some basis for my claim. You will see that the Confederate government jailed reporters, suspended habeas corpus (although they much preferred the declaration of martial law instead), instituted a passport system for all citizens (without approval from the Confederate Congress), travel restrictions and arrest without warrant of suspected Union supporters.

Just for my own information, Dawna, please tell me how many newspapers Lincoln shut down, for what reasons and for how long? And I have found excerpts from ANY document or letter simply does not tell the whole story. But thank you for posting the site of the letter so I could view it in its entirety.

Hal, claiming a dictatorship and that Lincoln was about to violate the constitution flys in the face of what the man actually said, but it does make for a rather dramatic read in your post. Please read the 1860 Republican platform again. And the only folks I can detect in 'open rebellion' were those in the Southern States, not Lincoln.

And Hal, please clear the criteria for me on how to read documents and statements. In one post I am condemned because I cannot infer in the constitution where it says slaves are property, and then in the next I am told to infer nothing but just read what the man says in his statement, 'rely on his actual statements' as it were. Please, pick a standard if you will.

Greg, your statement that the federal government of the time was too large, makes for a rather poor conspiracy theory when one reviews historical fact. 16,000 troops, a handful of federal marshals, a part-time attorney general and the post office as the only direct federal contact with most citizens of the period, begs the description of an overly large federal government.

Thea, AGAIN? Who makes who do anything they don't want to do? Were the Confederate authorities, generals and officials in South Carolina so stupid, so idiotic, so easily manipulated that they could be TRICKED into anything? If I had leaders like that they sure as hell wouldn't be in charge of catching dogs, let alone leading my country! This tired excuse about being 'tricked' into starting the war has about the same amount credence as a child getting caught by his mother with his hand in the cookie jar and blaming his sister for 'making' him do it. And why do you continue to ignore the historical record of Confederate officials stating and planning to capture the fort BEFORE any action by Lincoln was taken, to include the sailing of ships to the fort?

As for your tariff claim, after doing all that research on the tariff thread for Tommy, I am almost embarrassed to see you mention it as a contender for a 'serious' cause of the war. Reading the source documentation from the Congressional Globe shows once and for all it just isn't so, if you can force yourself to wade through it and be able to read the documents objectively.

Greg, as for the idea that the propaganda machine of the 1860's North 'worked' I again direct you to the newspaper articles of the time that stated 'let the erring sisters go' and take their slaves with them. That only AFTER the firing on Ft. Sumter did the citizens of the North take exception to the idea of the States leaving. And please consider the newspaper articles in the South that stoked the fires of rebellion to a white hot heat, in which no compromise could have taken place, in which articles threatened the men of the South with Republican's forcing mixed marriages and other flights of fancy on the population. Now there was a propaganda coup!

Unionblue

[dawna]

Neil:

I've read many essays, documents,articles and books etc. which clearly indicate that President Lincoln shut down well over three hundred newspapers during his administration, and the reason (s) why. But to narrow it down, I've included this source: The Real Lincoln: by Thomas DeLorenzo (Author & Professor of Economics, Sellinger Hall):

The tens of thousands of Northern citizens who were imprisoned without due process by the Lincoln administration (as many as 38,000 by one estimate in the Columbia Law Journal) were overwhelmingly plain citizens from all walks of life who simply expressed doubt over the administration's unconstitutional and despotic policies, including the shutting down of more than 300 opposition newspapers and the mass arrest of political dissenters by the military. Tens of thousands of Northern political prisoners spent months in a series of gulags, such as Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor, which came to be known as "the American Bastille."

The Lincoln administration cast a very wide net indeed in rounding up any and all political opponents in the Northern states. Anyone overheard questioning virtually anything the administration had done, let alone publishing critical articles or editorials in newspapers, could land in prison without any due process. In fact, Lincoln himself even argued that those who simply remained silent and did not actively support his administration should also be subject to imprisonment.

Here is a Lincoln reflection on the above from the "Collected Works of Lincoln":

"The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more if he talks ambiguously – talks for his country with "buts" and "ifs" and "ands."

And again from DeLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln": Thus, in Lincoln's opinion anyone who did not openly and publicly support his administration and its policies was a traitor, susceptible to being prosecuted as such, and hanged if found guilty. What could possibly be more tyrannical than punishing silence as a crime with a death sentence? Could Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or Alexander Hamilton have ever even entertained such thoughts? Madison (the "father of the Constitution") was president during the War of 1812, which coincided with a very serious New England secession movement led by Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering. It culminated with the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, yet Madison never implemented any such repression, nor is there evidence that he even considered it.

As Dean Sprague writes in Freedom Under Lincoln: "When an editor of a newspaper wished to attack a Peace man [i.e., a critic of the Lincoln administration] he would suggest him as a candidate for Fort Lafayette. When a Union man heard a Peace speech, he knew it was not necessary to interfere. He would simply pass by with the remark that the speaker had better watch out or he would end up in Fort Lafayette." That, presumably, would intimidate the peace advocate sufficiently to shut him up for good.

Free speech was illegal for the duration of the Lincoln administration. That's how modern historians and propagandists get away with lying to the public about the alleged "unity" of Northern opinion during the war. Of course there was relative "unity"; dissenting opinions were violently censored and the purveyors of those opinions imprisoned.

Francis Scott Key, author of the "Star Spangled Banner," would hardly have envisioned that one day his grandson, Francis Key Howard, would be imprisoned for over a year, for questioning the suppression of habeas corpus.

The political prisoners in Fort Lafayette ranged from mayors, state legislators, ex-governors, business owners and newspaper editors, to "common traders and impoverished farmers." These men were naturally bitter about their circumstances and were outspoken about it. Consequently, writes Sprague, "Fort Lafayette was the only place in the country where a man could speak freely."

I sometimes forget to quote my sources and I appreciate the reminders.

Dawna

[unionblue]

Dawna,

I am glad you have mentioned your source for your concerns about Lincoln and his supposed ills concerning civil liberties during the Civil War. I see you have used Thomas DeLorenzo and his book, The Real Lincoln.

Thomas DeLorenzo is a putz or, to put it more politely, a very bad Civil War historian. His facts are wrong and usually misquoted or quoted out of context. He is part of a small group of writers who write about the history of the Civil War and would not know true facts if they bit him in the a**. Charles Adams and the Kennedy brothers also come to mind.

I can provide you with a few sites that show where Prof. Thomas makes his mistakes and trust me, they are glaring and down right embarressing for any one researching the war. When I get to work, I'll will post these sites for you so that you can read them and make up your own mind as his worth as a Civil War historian.

Instead, please read the following books:

Southern Rights, Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism, by Mark E. Neely Jr.

The Fate of Liberty, Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties, by Mark E. Neely Jr. also.

Lincoln's Constitution, by Farber.

I'm sorry if I come across harsh on Prof. DeLorenzo, but his book is more like a classic comic book story than any attempt at real history, in my opinion. But again, compare him to the above and read the sites on criticism of his book The Real Lincoln, and then make up your own mind.

Debate continues over "The Real Lincoln":

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/debate.htm

DeLorenzo's Lincoln---a rebuttal:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/dilorenz.htm

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 25, 2005)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 25, 2005)

[hawglips]

Neil, I would be very interested in hearing an actual refutation of Dawna's valid points, which am I to assume, you consider invalid and erroneous?

They are very ****ing ones, for sure. Ones which I don't think are deserving to off-hand dismissal, without so much as one historical basis as to why you would want to dismiss them.

And the putz DiLorenzo, as you know, is hardly the only, or first, to make those points.

If one wants to tear it apart point by point, that is good form. Go for it. And you can start with the points Dawna brings up.

But an off-hand dismissal seems to me to be something less than an effective argument, wouldn't you agree?

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I find it somewhat refreshing your change of heart concerning your post above that a source should be fully considered, 'point-by-point,' as you put it.

This is indeed a startling departure concerning your own previous views (i.e. Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:40 pm of this same thread).

I also will assume that authors like James McPherson, William C. Davis, and Eric Foner, when used as a source here on the board will receive the same consideration instead of being labeled, 'government mouthpeices' and their conclusions refuted point-by-point?

Dawna, some further information and sites concerning my views on your previous post.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...2/lincoln.html

For my previous arguments and views over Lincoln's supposed suppression of civil liberties during the Civil War, please scroll down the topics listed under the 'Secession & Politics Discussion' section of this board and click on the 'Suspension of Civil Liberties' thread. Here you will find Tommy & I disputing the figures and conclusions of Prof. DeLorenzo and others on the subject. Again, you will form your own conclusions, but I pray you find better sources to reach them.

But, in my own opinion, DeLorenzo is still a putz when it comes to Civil War history and Lincoln. The man could not research his way out of a civil war era wet bag.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2005)

[dawna]

Neil:

Thank you for the links and book recommendations. I do understand that President Lincoln found himself "sailing in uncharted waters," but how do you justify imprisoning almost 40,000 Northern civilians, shutting down over 300 (not just "some") newspapers, and the mass arrest of political dissenters, or do you not agree with these figures? I have found these very same statistics in several other documents, and not just "The Real Lincoln." Would you agree that Lincoln's letter to Erastus Corning was full of paranoia?

As for Thomas Dilorenzo's credibility, I would think that for someone to author 12 books, have articles appear in academic journals and national publications along with the Wall Street Journal, Barren's, Reader's Digest, The Washington Post, and USA Today, they would need to be fairly good at research, and getting a few facts straight.

Dawna

[unionblue]

Dawna,

No, the figures are NOT right and I do not agree with them, but they are often mentioned. Do me a favor, Dawna, name some of the 300 newspapers for me and the specific reasons they were shut down. I have some information on this particular subject, but would like to know what specifics you have on the matter of newspaper closings.

Far too often these figures get passed on (300 newspapers, 40,000 Northern civilians, etc.) but are seldom verified or checked out. And you mention finding the very same statistics in several other documents. Would you please share them with me or where I might find them to check them and their sources?

I find it an amazing concept that Lincoln somehow had TOTAL control of the Northern press or Northern public opinion. I once stumbled across a web site which listed all the names Lincoln had been called in Northern newspapers during the Civil War. In most of those papers, Lincoln was called anything but a good Republican! And Dawna, if Lincoln had such a firm grip on civil liberties, why did the man think there was a good chance he was NOT going to be reelected in 1864, but actually contemplated his defeat? For that matter, why hold an election at all if you are the absolute dictator and suppressor of civil liberties as DeLorenzo and others claim?

I know I am sounding like a broken record when I speak of Prof. DiLorenzo's credibility, but again, have you at least checked out the web site, DeLorenzo's Lincoln, a rebuttal? One of the 'facts' Thomas states is that as a result of Lincoln's announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation, 200,000 Union troops deserted for that reason alone. This is a prime example of DeLorenzo NOT researching the facts or taking a fact out of context as this is simply not true. No 200,000 Union troops deserted simply because of the Emancipation Proclamation, but the number given is the TOTAL number of Union troops who deserted over the course of the ENTIRE war. There are other numerous sections of his book, The Real Lincoln were DeLorenzo misquotes or takes information out of context or out of sequence.

As for the man's ability to be published in the journals and national publications you mention is still does not mean his book is correct or good history. Other people have been published in the same publications whom I would feel uncomfortable with sharing the same oxygen with, let alone the views they espouse.

As for agreeing with you about Lincoln's letter to Erastus Corning being full of paranoia, I will check out the site you give above and get back to you once I have read through it. Fair enough?

Thanks for your patience,
Unionblue

[revvladsbyte]

Thea writes

"Greg,
I think a good start would be for every single newspaper in these United States to fire every single reporter. Then let the junior high schools with the highest scholastic ratings present their best seventh graders to take over the jobs of reporting the news.

They would do so without the jaded, jaundiced eye of the seasoned reporters who are so obsessed with force-feeding their agenda that nothing new penetrates their tiny minds"

Yes I agree on the spirit of your post. However by Middle school, I fear that thier minds are already indoctrinated into our federal/ corprate/money oriented society.

Note; I would like to take this time to thank all the posting members of this site, (even the yanks) ;{>, I am learning more from the posts and researching them than I could at the local university. And the knowledge caliber of "you all" is remarkable!