An excerpt from a letter sent to a teacher planning for “President’s Day” in 2009.
One must do research to find the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his first inaugural address. He said he had never seen it, but he actually asked his supporters to push it through the Congress before his inauguration. His lobbying efforts to get it passed have been documented. He probably had not seen whether it was finally printed in bold or italics, but he took an active part in its passage. There is no doubt he knew the wording before his inauguration.
The Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution (March, 1861)
“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.”
This amendment, which went to the states for ratification so it had already passed the North controlled Congress, forever made slavery a state issue and could never be repealed. Each state was free to decide for itself from then on. If the southern states had accepted the amendment and returned to the union, it would have been ratified and would be the law of the land today. There would have been no war and no 13th, 14th, or 15th amendments as we know them although the 15th in some form would have eventually passed as did women’s suffrage which was not allowed at that time either.
Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address quotation is next.
“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, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
If Lincoln was willing to remove all future federal say over slavery, what did he hold as important? Again from his first inaugural we have a clue, namely taxes.
“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.”
The South was for a 10% tariff and free trade as opposed to a 36% plus average rate for the Morrill Tariffs favored by Lincoln and the northern protectionists. The South was also for duty free passage on the Mississippi River from New Orleans up. That meant states like Ohio all the way up to Minnesota could dodge the protectionist tariffs imposed in Northern oceanic harbors like New York and Boston. What role did taxes and profits play in Lincoln’s motivations? Prominent New Yorkers said “grass would grow in the streets” if the South was allowed to go due to its lower taxes and its ports being used for inland northern states. Lincoln was clearly for saving the “Union” and through it the protections for northern industry and unconstitutional spending by government financed through the tariffs paid for primarily by Southerners. The South was the exporting/importing section of the country. The South exported agricultural products and imported finished goods. Lincoln practiced the “living document” view of the Constitution.
A transcribed letter is below from Lincoln’s own hand to a notable newspaper editor and abolitionist, Horace Greeley. (By the way, after the war Mr. Greeley helped pay for Jefferson Davis’ legal council as a gesture of fair play and reconciliation. Davis never got a trial because several Supreme Court justices and noted attorneys told President Johnson and William Seward, Davis would have been vindicated in court for the treason charges that held him in prison and by its implication the legality of secession. The whole premise of the war would have been explained for all to see. The feds released Davis from prison shortly thereafter. They ignored Davis’ plea for a trial. He wanted one with his life in the balance. That was the penalty for a treason conviction. How many would risk their necks in a noose for principle? That says a lot. He believed he would win in court the validity of secession he lost on the battlefield.)
Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
America was clearly racist, both North and South, but was Lincoln a racist? From his own mouth during the infamous Lincoln-Douglass debates in Charleston, Illinois (1858) we find the following:
“I will say then that 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 — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Lincoln was for colonization and did not want blacks and whites to “amalgamate”. Look up the current West African country of Liberia with the capital of Monrovia named after James Monroe. It was paid for with colonization money including Lincoln’s. It is made up of descendents of freed slaves shipped back to Africa. Others were sent to Panama and wherever he could get them away from the “white” areas.
The reader is invited you to read Ebony Magazine’s Lerone Bennett’s book Forced Into Glory – Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream available at http://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850851
You are also encouraged to read Loyola’s Professor Dilorenzo’s http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233222716&sr=1-1
Like much of taught history, there are two sides to everything and he who wins usually writes what is espoused. It was to powerful people’s advantage to create the mythic Lincoln so government would be seen in a positive light and anything the Jeffersonians stood for could be discredited. Special interests do not like a restricted government such as a constitutional republic. They want favors by law where the Constitution allows for none. Christians see all mankind as fallen sinful beings. Our faith teaches that and we have never found an exception to it save Christ Jesus. Lincoln was as human as anyone and a mixed bag who like most politicians, tailored his speech depending on the audience and believed a wide variety of things that do not fit with the image held today of him. He was a very astute politician, rhetorical genius, and worked to change the original vision of the Founding Fathers’ Constitution although his rhetoric said otherwise. He was tenacious in his views for a strong central government in the Hamilton-Clay tradition. He opposed the ideals of Jefferson embodied in limited government as clearly stated in Article 1 Section 8, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the Federalist papers which limitations are mostly meaningless today – to our detriment. There would have been no Great Depression or current economic calamity, no Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq/Afghanistan if the original views of the Founding Fathers still mattered. For example, we have not declared war since WWII as required by the Constitution so we have spent blood and treasure without following our own “highest” law. Throw in “No Child Left Behind” in that too and a whole host of government boondoggles. Find the word “Education” in the Constitution. It is not there. Under the 10th Amendment, it is purely a state issue as it is supposed to be. Unless it is expressly stated in the Constitution, it is not supposed to be done according to Madison, its primary author. Understand the seriousness of the two views of the Constitution? The feds have no legal constitutional authority to meddle with education. When they clearly tread where they are not authorized, they withhold federal tax money in other ways to coerce for what they want. The same goes for many more things they do every day.
Lincoln rejected the views of Jefferson and Madison although he quoted both when it served his purpose as politicians quote the Constitution today but do not follow it. Lincoln believed in Hamilton’s central view of power. Hamilton had actually proposed a constitutional monarchy with George Washington as its first king with no state boundaries, but merely “one nation in the aggregate”. Hamilton was for consolidated centralized power even though he publicly talked of the “republic”. The Founding Fathers rejected his centralized view and gave us the Madison draft as the foundation of the Constitution. Henry Clay carried that banner of concentrated power and handed it off to his friend, Lincoln. Hamilton’s view of centralization was accomplished through Lincoln’s victory in the War for Southern Independence. It was not a civil war. A civil war is where two or more sides fight for control of the government and the opposition. The South never wanted to conquer Washington and impose its will on any in the North. The South just wanted to leave peaceably and let the United States govern the rest as they saw fit. Eleven, or thirteen states as it actually was, out of thirty-three or more would have given both sides more land, wealth, and population than most of the countries in the world then and now. The two philosophies of the Revolution would have had two variations of government and no bloodshed was required. Slavery would have faded due to technology as it did peaceably in the rest of the West in less than a generation. Blacks were slaves due to economics at the time. It was profitable, but that was changing. Only in the deep south was slavery still viable. Its days were numbered there.
You know well Hamilton’s views of a strong central authority and little if any power for the states. You live that every day. Here was Jefferson’s view.
“Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” –Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
“The States in North America which confederated to establish their independence of the government of Great Britain, of which Virginia was one, became on that acquisition, free and independent States, and as such, authorized to constitute governments, each for itself, in such form as it thought best. They entered into a compact (which is called the Constitution of the United States of America), by which they agreed to unite in a single government as to their relations with each other and with foreign nations, and as to certain other articles particularly specified. They retained at the same time each to itself, the other rights of independent government, comprehending mainly their domestic interests.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:442
Jefferson’s view can also be seen in this example. Suppose you are a South Carolinian traveling to New York. You would be a South Carolinian visiting New York. If you caught a ship to England and landed there, you would be an American, not a South Carolinian, visiting England. The general government was clearly defined in its duties in Article 1 Section 8 and the 9th and 10th Amendments left everything else with the States. The original signed Declaration of Independence does say “united STATES” does it not? The Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution recognized the independence and sovereignty of each individual state by name from the king does it not? The Articles of Confederation gave each state veto power and recognized their sovereignty. They had just fought a war of secession from England for their sovereignty. Would they give it up? The states are mentioned repeatedly in the Constitution and were required to vote by state to ratify the document. The states can call a constitutional convention and repeal the entire Constitution, modify it, or shut the federal government down, or basically whatever they wish. The states control the on-off switch. Patrick Henry’s “I smell a rat” quotation was toward the Hamiltonian move to concentrate power at the expense of the states if the Constitution was reinterpreted more loosely in the future. Henry was an anti-federalist whose fears have been proven over and over again. No greater example of a Christian Patriot ever lived than Patrick Henry.
Jefferson’s view can be seen also in the basic definitions of the words themselves. For example what is a “state”? A state is a small sovereign country. Hillary Clinton is our current Secretary of “State”. Presidents receive heads of “state”. We talk about the “state” of Israel and creating a Palestinian “state”. Our union was supposed to be one like the age old Swiss Canton system or the European Union. Is a German visiting Austria still a German? Is a German visiting Canada a European? Are there still Germans, Dutch, Frenchmen, Italians, and the like or is everyone there just a European? These groups are separate who joined together for some shared benefits while keeping their identities. It is the same here. South Carolina Senator DeMint and Massachusetts Senator Kennedy would have little in common except for a somewhat similar language. The Germans and Austrians do that but they are both distinct people. Ask them.
Read the Gettysburg Address with a discerning eye. Look up what H.L. Mencken said about the address. The Emancipation Proclamation also only freed slaves behind enemy lines while protecting the institution behind Union lines. Read the document in its entirety. Lincoln himself first said it was unconstitutional since in his whole argument the southern states never left the union. It was a “war measure” under his authority as Commander in Chief. He primarily wanted two things from it, a slave revolt to pull Confederate troops off the front lines and to give England another public reason to stay out of the war. He also told the British behind the scenes if they opened Southern ports, he would invade Canada, which had always been on the minds of New Englanders even during the Revolution. If the southern states were always part of the union as Lincoln said repeatedly, under Article IV Section 3, West Virginia is an illegal state as some in Lincoln’s cabinet debated. Virginia’s elected legislature in Richmond never consented to the formation from its borders. Lincoln thought he needed the electoral votes for the upcoming 1864 election. The Constitution was ignored.
Look up the current state song of Maryland. It talks of the “despot”. That was referring to Lincoln who imprisoned more than thirty members of the Maryland legislature without charges so they could not vote to secede. The grandson of Francis Scott Key was one of them. Maryland’s state flag is a joining of Confederate and Union troop flags. South Carolina’s current flag is the flag of the seceded state of SC adopted January 28, 1861. We had no single state flag before secession.
You can look up and confirm everything listed here in a few minutes. I am sure the schools teach the same established politically correct views on Lincoln taught for decades. What is in this letter and a lot more would have been common knowledge fifty to one hundred years ago. Scholars have been discussing the other side of Lincoln in increasing frequency over the last twenty years. You need to see this “true” side as well. This side can be documented easily enough with sources like the links provided and documents from places like the National Archives. There are some tenured professors available who could be used to verify. The purpose of a liberal arts education is to train the student in critical thinking by exposing all sides for study. That is what has been always taught.
So this is not misconstrued lets be perfectly clear. Everyone wishes the only people who came to America would be those who did so of their own free will. (Any Native American lineage may cringe at that statement.) It would have been best if the South had never needed to secede, but if the Constitution had been obeyed, they never would have. They believed they were taxed for unconstitutional spending that benefited the North at their expense. They also believed slavery was a state issue for each state to decide, but they had that covered with the Corwin Amendment if that was the only issue. New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island expressly preserved the future right to “secede” for any state in their “acceding” ratification documents so we must accept their legal right to secede from that. They put conditions on the ratification documents for future generations in any state to be exercised if needed. The Constitution’s silence itself was another allowance so the 9th and 10th Amendments would have authorized it. The states formed the federal government and not the other way around.
Southerners believe in the Golden Rule while at the same time any must admit God did allow slavery in the Bible for reasons unknown in this life under Isaiah 55:8. His acknowledgement of it is even in the Ten Commandments and the writings of the New Testament. Southerners are a firm believer in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all and that does mean all including the unborn, the old, and regardless of the melanin content of one’s skin. Many of our ancestors had to be slaves at one point. The Romans conquered Europe after all and they practiced slavery for any color.
We were given a constitutional republic of limited defined government and not an unrestrained democracy. A constitutional republic is a good form of government. A democracy, like Athens, is destined for ruin as majorities run amok over minorities following the whim of the day and voting themselves money from the treasury at their neighbor’s expense. Sounds like America today in an ever-greater march against the few remaining tenants of Constitution. Please go here and watch. http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Southerners were pro original intent and for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ Republic of Republics and not a “living document” justifiers. If a stop sign was not a “stop” sign would it cause trouble? Amend it legally if it needs to be as is provided in the Constitution, but do not ignore it and break one’s oath of office. Forty plus percent of the entire US economy goes to government at all levels. The Boston Tea Party was over a 3 cent per pound sales tax on tea to put things in perspective. In other words, the cost of a $20,000 car from troubled Detroit would be $12,000 without the cost of government today. Could they sell cars competitively with foreigners at that price or closer to it? Some government is necessary and proper under the original intent view of the Framers. “It would be thought a hard government, that should tax its people one-tenth part of their time, to be employed in its service.“ …Benjamin Franklin. We are more than four times that in total and that is why we are in massive debt and why our socialist economy is not sustainable. We certainly do not live in a free market with all the taxes and regulations. This country has lost its way and the young need to know if it is ever to be preserved. Try swimming the English Channel with a concrete block around one’s neck. That is what such a tax and regulatory burden does to our economy. Both major parties are guilty of getting us in this shape so this is not playing politics.
Jefferson Davis wished Lincoln had not been killed. Davis did not want him dead although there were numerous attempts by the federal government on Davis’ life. Lincoln only got about 40% of the vote in 1860. Three from Jefferson’s Democrat-Republican party split the opposition vote. It is wished Lincoln had been defeated in the 1860 election. If he had not been elected, no secession would have likely occurred and even if it had, no bloodshed or war would have happened. The US lives next door to Canada and Mexico. If the USA lived next door to the CSA, would that necessarily be any different? The facts would have been far easier to discuss if he had not been made a martyr and deified.