Lincoln’s War
04. May, 2009 
36 Comments
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
The following is an excerpt from the new book, Dred Scott’s Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America, by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. The excerpt is drawn from Chapter Five, entitled “The Civil War,” published here with permission from the publisher, Thomas-Nelson:
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.
THE SETTING
The North and South were divided both morally and economically. As the previous chapters have chronicled, the debate over slavery had firmly gripped the country in the decades preceding the Lincoln presidency. Since the country’s founding, the states and the federal government kept deeply rooted passions concerning slavery and abolition at bay by constantly compromising. The balance of free states and slave states was maintained as slavery expanded. States were given autonomy to deal with the issue of slavery as they saw fit, so long as they did not interfere with another’s property rights. But the Dred Scott case placed the federal government firmly on the side of the slaveholders, redefining the slavery provisions in the Constitution in a way that created a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to obtaining the human moral equality for which so many Americans yearned.
In addition to the country’s division over slavery, there was the concern over which economy the federal government favored—the South’s agrarian economy or the North’s commercial interests. Interestingly enough, the Dred Scott decision did not accurately reflect to which side of the debate the federal government was committed. Northern states had gained control of the federal government as the 1850s drew to a close, and the South found itself on the defensive. Its agricultural economy, sustained by slave labor, was attacked on both moral and economic grounds.
A QUESTIONABLE STANCE
Abraham Lincoln emerged as a candidate for the presidency at a time when national anticipation was at its peak. How would a new president balance the interests of the North and South? In the wake of Dred Scott, would he steer the country toward democracy or slaveocracy? Adding to the uncertainty were Lincoln’s own unclear and often contradictory statements over slavery itself. Lincoln never argued that slavery was unjust. Rather, he asserted that it threatened to weaken the Union and its democratic values. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln stated: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided.” A skilled politician, Lincoln appealed to the antislavery interests of Northern abolitionists as well as moderates in border slave states who were opposed to racial equality.
But the common tale that Lincoln was a sympathetic and heroic defender of black freedom is simply a myth. As Union armies met the forces of the Confederacy on the battlefield, he openly argued, “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.” It is important to analyze the magnitude of what Lincoln says here. He admits that the emancipation of blacks will only happen because it is of assistance to the Union; slaves are only pawns in the game of politics and warfare he is playing. Lincoln places the freedom of blacks on a low priority compared to his desire to unify the nation, and his words here seem more becoming of a Confederate Army officer than the so-called Great Emancipator. Yet it is the latter title that we’ve all been taught to attribute to Abraham Lincoln. In my opinion, such a title is the least deserved sobriquet accorded any president. Lincoln’s rhetoric notwithstanding, Southerners were uncertain about his commitment to protecting their slavery interests. His consistent manipulation of the issue of slavery along the lines of Union preservation earned him the fraudulent title of a political moderate in the North, but Southerners were still adamant about having a Southerner as president.
LINCOLN IGNITES WAR
Despite Southern opposition, Lincoln was nonetheless elected as the sixteenth president of the United States in 1860. Far from over- whelming support, he received only 39 percent of the popular vote, and his name was stricken from the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In South Carolina the legislature chose not to have candidates for president on the ballot, in apparent anticipation of secession. Only 1.1 percent of white voters supported Lincoln in Virginia. These were the same states that would secede from the Union the following year.
The Southern states were increasingly discontented as their interests were of secondhand concern to the federal government. Without political influence in Congress, the Southern legislatures still retained the right to nullification and secession. Nullification was the legal theory by which states could declare federal laws unconstitutional, while secession was the right claimed by states to separate from the Union. As soon as Lincoln became president, states’ rights disappeared in the shadow of national power when he declared secession to be illegal. During his first inaugural address, Lincoln associated secession with anarchy as he stated,
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. . . . In 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union. . . . It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resol[ution]s and ordinances to that effect are legally void.
However, Lincoln chose to ignore the historical underpinnings of the American political system; the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence. President Lincoln also made the faulty assumption that the Union takes precedence over the states, as the goal was “to form a more perfect Union.” He failed to recognize that states are free and independent, and combined they form the Union. As Ronald Reagan would say in his first inaugural address over a century later, “the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.” This subtle distinction is an important aspect of State sovereignty. The United States was founded on the ideals that federal power could be challenged by the states. Lincoln overlooked the fact that the states had formed a voluntary agreement and did not have the ability to surrender their sovereignty forever to a centralized power.
Nullification was also a fundamental state right to prevent federal domination. States enjoyed the right to use nullification as a protective measure against unconstitutional federal laws by making them ineffective against their citizens. Nullification had become a states’ rights tradition, and both the North and the South exercised it prior to 1861. The most famous examples of this in the North centered around Northern states’ personal liberty laws, a series of laws that were passed in response to the Fugitive Slave Act. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court found these laws, and thus nullification, unconstitutional—in the 1842 case Prigg v. Pennsylvania—Northern states, yes, Northern states, continued to enact laws that criminalized the return of fugitive slaves in direct defiance of federal law. Lincoln’s attempt to trample the states’ sovereignty, even the rights of those opposed to slavery, only heightened the conflict between the advocates of a supreme, unchecked federal government and the advocates of a modest central government, tempered by nullification.. South Carolina started the trend of secession in December 1860. Concerned with preserving the Union at all costs, Lincoln was determined to use military force to bring the rebel states into line. But he did not want to be portrayed as an aggressor and needed the South somehow to ignite the conflict. This would make the Southerners look like the aggressors and would give the impression that Lincoln simply had no choice but to declare war as a defense against aggression.
The solution devised by Lincoln triggered a war that would kill seven hundred thousand Americans. Advised by his top military commanders that an incoming ship would be considered a threat to Confederates and would prompt an attack, Lincoln deliberately sent a ship of food provisions as well as additional armed soldiers to Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The Confederates fell for the ploy and fired the first shot. Lincoln responded by sending armed warships and deployed a total of seventy-five thousand troops to invade all of the Southern states.
His plan, however, did not go unnoticed. Northern newspapers were quick to inform the public that Lincoln had instigated the Fort Sumter incident. The Jersey City American Standard wrote, “there is a madness and ruthlessness” in Lincoln “which is astounding . . . this unarmed vessel . . . is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South, which act by the pre-determination of the government is to be the pretext for letting loose the horrors of war.” The Providence Daily Post also wrote, “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.” These headlines and stories were replicated by other newspapers in the North. Lincoln’s plan to bring the country into a war was no longer a hidden political strategy.
A substantial number of free blacks from the North offered to serve in the Union army, but their attempts were met with federal opposition. Freedom and equality were not intertwined in the North, and blacks were constantly reminded of this disparity. Requests by blacks made to the War Department went unheard, often for political reasons. President Lincoln was ultimately concerned with the border slave states possibly abandoning the Union if blacks’ status were elevated to that of a soldier in the Union army.
Lincoln’s position on slavery was made even more evident in the first few weeks of war. The fighting immediately prompted Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas to secede from the Union. In a clear display of Lincoln’s priorities, the President proposed to permit the continuation of slavery in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware so long as those states remained in the Union. To save the Union from further division, Lincoln was willing to continue the subjugation of blacks.
In the end, this proposal worked, as those States chose not to secede. However, many citizens from those border states still joined the Confederacy. Both Kentucky and Missouri had two state governments, one supporting the Confederacy and the other supporting the Union.
By May 1861, a total of eleven Southern states had seceded from the Union and established their own nation, the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy was comprised of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The Confederacy’s Constitution contained provisions that expressly protected the institution of slavery, limited the power of the new central government, and clearly reflected state sovereignty. Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, declared secession to be a violation of the Constitution, and effectively declared war on the people of the Southern states that refused to recognize his presidency.
Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], who was on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His newest book is Dred Scott’s Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America, (Nelson, 2009) His previous books are A Nation of Sheep, The Constitution in Exile and Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.
Copyright © 2009 Andrew P. Napolitano
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
May 4th, 2009 at 3:34 am
It also bears note that the major abolishinists all came from the south. The very act of preaching abolishinism was very dangerous in the North. It would appear that nearly the entire country was extremely racist at this point and violently so. After the civil war, during reconstruction, a more modern form of slavery took root. It was far more expansive, though it did concentrate on Blacks it also counted poor whites as well. This would be the slavery known as tenant farming, share cropping, etc. Many historians have said the boll weevel did more to free slaves than lincoln ever did. I could go on, but that might get a bit boring for most. Thanks, Jim
thank you Sir. I would encourage people to read the book “They were white and they were slaves.” I am SCV, mom was president of Ark. UDC prior to her death. Just wished to share this. Yankees say “are you still fighting the war?” Well, one nite at the Ozark folk center in Mtn. View, Ark, during the nightly show, a gentleman played Dixie on his autoharp. After the standing ovation, a very young girl, sitting in front of us with her parents, turned to us and said “well, we won.” The father told her she was in the wrong place to talk about that. They are still fighting it too.
Lincoln was in fact a white supremacist, based on his own words.
For much more on Lincoln’s actions and words, read ‘Lincoln Unmasked’ by Thomas DiLorenzo, as well as chapter 6 of ‘The Constitution in Exile’ by Judge Napolitano.
This was one very evil man, not the saint of our history books. But always remember, ‘History is written by the winners’.
A very interesting subject in that it never seems to get resolved completely. While Lincoln did not base the Union action on slavery, the southern states that succeeded from the union were almost unanimous in citing the continued opposition of slavery by northern states as one of their prime motivations. This was rooted in economic reasons as well as the belief that blacks were inferior to whites and that God ordained the institution of slavery.
I am a white person born in the Midwest and have lived in 14 states over 65 years (North, South, and in between) and can say that I have yet to live anywhere in the United States where white people do not harbor at least some feelings of ill will or fear against blacks.
Aside from the racial issue concerning the Succession of the Southern States, it is my understanding of the Constitution did not and does not prohibit Succession by a member state as the federal government was designed as subservient to the states and people and both had\have the God given right to put aside any government that did not serve their best interest.
Makes for interesting conversation.
That would be “secession” not “succession.”
Thank you Al E.
That is a significant difference that can be both distracting and an irritant.
Once again I fall victim to my propensity of hitting send before re-reading.
Peoples noses are out of joint when the subject of slavery comes up. You think that slavery was invented and practiced in US only. It was and still is a practice today that some hate to admit. So, you do not like slavery in any form, really? By imposing your will on others you are degrading them to one of the forms of slavery. The Torah gives guidance on how you should treat those under you. So all these intellectual ramblings are just that -ramblings of the idle for the purpose of one upmanship. But don’t stop, I need a good laugh now and then.
Well Casey, if you want a real laugh, then look in the mirror. Mere acceptance of a job is known as wage slavery. So, laugh at your own enslavement. Otherwise, leave people who are aware of our own enlavement, yet wish to do something about it alone. For we are more man than you will ever hope to be. Good luck enjoying your shackles moron. And regardless of your false sense of intelligence, I am sure most of us realize that slavery is a world wide phenomenon which has been around for ages. Great job at pointing out the obvious and most elemental facts.
I must have touched a raw nerve…Ok, I’ll bite…So what is it that you “…wish to do something about it…”?
Respectful
The “moron”
This is not true. My family were involved in the abolitionist cause and I’ve read enough primary source material to know perfectly well that the north – south conflict from the 3/5 compromise on through the anti-State’s Rights, pro-slavery Dred Scott Decision of 1858, through the Democrat creation of the KKK was all about slavery.
Down with Slaver Revisionism! Up with primary source history!
Mr. Schaper,
I like your style slogans and all, but alas, one side or the other will still call you a moran. Brace yourself…
Steve, the public debate was all about the morality of slavery, but hat was like our public debates. Of course, there was a lot of the behind the scenes in this case that was also about that morality but there were a lot of other factors involved as well. However none of the morality issues were strong enough to propel us into war. If you look carefully at it, it was more of a case of the type of slavery that people wanted to have carried out. Chattel slavery of the south, or indentured slavery of hte north. Slavery did strike a deep chord among many people, but not the ones who determined war. This was also a time of expansions and railroads and such. Good lord, entire libraries can be written about it. Basically, in the south there was also a move to increase the slave class to poor whites, and in the north they mostly wanted the blacks to stay in the south. and so on
To the moron, the nerve you struck was your stupidity. Go bite your crack pipe if you have nothing to contribute beyond your inaneness.
I apologize to all post contributors. You all are WAY above my pay grade.
I’ll just go pop me a beer. Have a good life.
Lincoln’s purpose in pursuing the war was preservation of the Union–no doubt about it. However, the proximate cause for secession was Lincoln’s election. He ran on a platform that slavery would not be touched where it existed, but that it should not be extended—-basically the old Wilmot Proviso position.
Therefore, since the threat of federal interference with the expansion of slavery was the cause of secession and that the Civil War would not have been fought without secession, one is hard pressed to creditably argue that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
The most one might say is that Lincoln had the choice to allow the Southern states to secede without prosecuting a war against them. As Lincoln’s goal was the preservation of the Union and not the eradication of slavery, one may say only in this very narrow sense that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
For what its worth, I agree that Lincoln’s war was unjust and illegal. The United States was founded in an act of secession and has often supported self-determination in other areas of the world. It is not a small bit of hypocrisy to have denied self-determination here.
Preserving the union was Lincoln’s dominant goal, as the judge writes. He also wrote that Lincoln was not anti-slavery. That’s where I stopped reading and started skimming. I’ve read many of A. Lincoln’s letters and to claim he was not opposed to the institution is on a par with claiming he was gay. I could also make the claim that he was born in Hawaii. You just have to ignore the right data. The results are still the same and as the judge has explained; today, Lincoln’s and the pro-unionist’s victory seems immediately regrettable.But it is reality.
At the risk of joining ranks with those scoffed as ‘morons,’ I must protest that the true root cause of the US Civil War can be traced to the most basic of all human pursuits…. GREED! In my defense, I do have the support of the greatest of authors. The Bible says, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Since all war is evil, it follows that getting to the root cause requires one to ‘follow the money.’ How many will disagree? How violent will be their protests?
To Just live Free, not calling you a moron, just clarifying one point. Not all war is evil. However, the only war that isn’t is a war for freedom. It is also the only just war to be had. As such, the only war we’ve ever had that was just in this country was the Revolutionary War. A war led by men of such rare charcter that I would dare anyone to uphold themselves up to their levels of excellence in nearly every aspect of themselves. And yes, I too fall far short of the mark of the least of them. All other wars were fought for both greed of money, and for the greed of power over another. Both of which are unholy in the realms of ethics. Peace, Jim
Interesting article. This book is at the top of my list of books to read.
Slavery did become an issue in the 1864 election and was also addressed in the 1868 election.
The end of slavery came about due to the Civil War. It may not have been the prime reason for the war, but it was one of the results.
Was he against slavery?Was he gay?I see the Abe lovers get a little touchy.They should.Abe was anti-slavery “expansion”.He wanted a White West.And actually wanted a White US.His being an ‘active’ member of the
American Colonization Society clearly shows this.Lincolnites like to say he changed his way of thinking but written history shows he appropriated money from congress for colonization thru his presidency.Gay?Well,again the Lincolnites ‘blow off’ the 4 years of sleeping with his buddy Speed.It was common for men to share a bed.Being cold and all.Of course what they don’t say is that was reserved for poor men,not lawyers.And then there is
Derickson the body guard.Staying with Abe when Mary Todd was gone.This too WAS blown off as gossip ‘from a woman’s diary’,which is partly true.It was in her diary.I say WAS because after further review,the Derickson saga shows up in several other writings of prominent men.There was an intersting piece on this on the History Channel.Did I mention Dickerson was part of the “Bucktail Brigade”? BTW Why do you think the Gay Republicans are called ‘Log Cabin Republicans’? Hello.
Great analysis of the Civil War. I really enjoy Judge Napolitano’s viewpoints on historic as well as contemporary issues. He is being drafted for public office. Check out the site to learn more about this great public figure: http://www.judgenapolitano.com
Ladies and gentlemen, as we approach the time for remembering our gallant ancestors that so bravely wore the grey for the Tarheel State, let us remember that close to 90% of our Southern men did not own slaves and were fighting for their homes and property and to be free from a tyrannical government. It sickens me to no end that our schools in the South as well as other areas of America are forced to teach the lies imposed upon them by our government that Lincoln was a hero! This type of vomit and fester is what has caused us to be a nation of weak and morally bankrupt lemmings that are being led to the edge of the cliff by those powers that be. If we had the intestinal fortitude and character of our ancestors and the politicians of today tried to imposed their laws upon us, the pots of tar would be set ablaze and the feathers would be bagged and at the ready at the steps of the capital!
Let us get back to the values and morals of our ancestors that had to strive and carve out a life in the wilderness and stop being a nation of weak and mindless idlers that are more interested in who gets voted off of American Idol than what is going on in our government!
May 10 is Confederate Memorial Day in NC. Remember your ancestors that hailed from the Tarheel State.
Deo Vindice
Err…. much of that tyranny they were revolting from was also from their own Confederate government. In many ways, the south began the war to quell the rebellion against the upper class. That war was very complicated indeed! It wasn’t so cut and dried as many think it was. Please ignore the propoganda taught in your schools. Very little of that was true.
So it’s agreed…We get in our time machines and meet in Springfield in 1859 and fix Statism once and for all. Is Mothers Day good for everybody?
It started with taxation, promoted by Lincoln prior to his taking office. A tariff that would impact the only the south by tripling the import tax.
He was the first Senator from Illinois elected President, notice how well the second senator from Illinois elected president is doing. States are again talking about seceding.
I’m related to the man, too bad. He killed 3% of the US population for political power. I would have thanked John Wilks Booth.
I think it’s time that we strip the federal government of it’s powers and setup a convention of states. The convention will include a number of representatives based upon the percentage of each states population. From there, we can start over with just the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in hand.
The federal government has become so detached and deaf to the voices of “the people”. Press RESET.
An interesting article that leaves out a WHOLE lot of history to prevent an amazingly one-sided viewpoint. Such as the fact that there was NOT a lack of volunteers – on both sides – to fight the initial battles, and that the South enacted total conscription before the North did. But my point about volunteers fighting indicates that it wasn’t just Lincoln alone who wanted a war – for ANY reason – and a careful reading of the 10th amendment MIGHT indicate a “right to secession” but only if (perhaps) a majority of ALL Americans agreed that one or more states should secede – and as far as I have read that vote never took place.
By the way, no true student of history has EVER argued that Lincoln started this war to free the slaves. But he DID end up freeing the slaves – or rather 300,000+ Yankee soldiers died freeing them – as well as keeping the Union together. Too bad the Southern leaders didn’t just request a total American vote on their secession – they might have just gotten it! Of course war would have followed anyway over every Western territory – bloody Kansas writ large.
This makes for fascinating reading, I have been following the sovereignty movement, trying to understand the issues, and to put the historical factors into some context with todays events. As a (ACSR), “African Captive Survivor Refugee” a descendent of those African peoples enslaved on the continent your fore fathers conquered,
I wonder what states rights and a return to individual sovereignty will mean for the masses of the descendents of African descent being held captive in these united states will be? We are not citizens even today, and we were not considered human at the time tof he colonies formation, so we have no sovereign state to return to, the fourteenth amendment has everything to do with commerece and nothing I can see to do with “citizenship, so it appears history is about to repeat itself. At the time of the so called Emancipation Proclaimation” a public announcement, not a law, we had no land and no where to stand, today we are just about in the same boat, except it’s worse now, the CIA has had many years to terrorize our poor people with drug infestation, we now have assimulated individualistic value system as a result of forced assimilation as apposed to the communal values and behaviour of our original cultures. With the planned economic demolition in progress,
you know we are being disenfranchized once again. Personally, I can understand and support the tenth amendment movement, the Federal Corporation of the United States Of America, has become openly facist.
I do belive the only ones served by the divide of race hatred are the ones using us “all” to loot this country. Obama is a diversion to keep the majority hoping, however he is the son a a Caucasin women and a African from Kenya, so they say, and he cannot relate to the descendents of those being held without full rights of Citizenship, and acceptance in this country, his pretty speeches about this being “One Nation” not with standing.
My hope is that you are sucessful in your 10th amendment movement, and that once this group of crocks in D.C. are releaved of duty, you will have the courage to extend liberty to those (ACSR’s), who have never had the opportunity to choose, to stay or to go. personally, I have had the honor of living in Ghana, West Africa, for 3.5 yrs, and would rather be free to relearn my own culture than see my grandchildren continue to endure forced assimilation and second calss status. Apparently, America will go the way of Ancient Khemet, which you may know as “Egypt”, when the two lands were made one, there where some who sided with their conqueor’s, and some who chose to leave and they went down into the Sudan, to maintain their dignity and their identity. Please keep in mind, we are not a monolith, and have been lied to through miseducation, misinformation and false history. Will it finally be Freedom for all?
The people of this Nation are at a crossroads, the same as the German people faced in the day of Hitler, We are all aware of the Fema camps and the militarization of this country. Will we repeat histroy, or will all the people of this great nation rise up together to put an end to despots, hatred and genocide, so that the rest of the world can begin to heal and create a culture of peace on this planet?
Ngon’e Aw
ngonea@yahoo.com
African slaves were not afforded the right of citizenship as a result of their birth in American. Many Americans have done nothing to EARN their citizenship and readily accept all the rights and previleges afforded them in the Constitution as birth rights. Consider competition and the ability to raise the bar. I think the Dred Scott decision crystalizes the importance of the American way of life and defuses the discussion about the intelligence of those who wrote the Constitution in the first place. Considering that there were only Europeans and some Africans at the time. The discussion should be about the greatness of a document that only the intellectuals could interpret. For the descendents of African slaves to be able to present an argument to the Supreme Court and obtain a decision, favorable or not, is the true testament to its intent. The Confederate ideal continues because it is continuously pasted on at the dinner table. However, I do believe that some of the future generations will begin to question its validity as a way to life. For the African slave, Lincoln just began a process that continues today. The African slave was not as slave by choice and was not freed by choice. White Americans made all of these decisions. Should not the African be grateful? At some point in time the children of African slaves will be accepted to full citizenship or like the Confederate families, we will continue working on it.
RickyD wrote”
“Should not the African be grateful? At some point in time the children of African slaves will be accepted to full citizenship or like the Confederate families, we will continue working on it.”
Grateful?
what Hubris, no I think the decendents of enslaved African people, (ACSR’s) African Captive Survivor Refugees, now being held as prisoners of war in the Federal Corporation of the United States of America, should be “FREE”, not grateful. Your message proves the point,
What right do you have to expect us to live in hope of being accepted by those who have benifited directly and indirectly of the crimes against the humanity of our Ancestors, for hundreds of years ,and those crimes continue to this day. And what if we do not accept you? Do we not have the right to reject your maybe one day offer?
Perhaps you should ask yourself, if you are faced with the present circumstances of tryanny by your own government, because you accept tryanny upon others?
Universal law, never sleeps
“I tremble for my country when I reflect, God is just, and his justice will not sleep forever”
Thomas Jefferson
who fathered 5 children by his teenage slave girl Sally Hemmings, while he lectured about freedom and equality.
That slavery was ended was the only good that resulted from the War Between the States(possibly showing the Republican party for what it was and is could be the another) But why these facts; the CORWIN Amendment forwarded by the Republican party and Lincoln in early 1861 would have made slavery permanet and unamendable in the South,Lincoln supported it.Next,the emansipation proclamation freed slaves beyond the grasp of the Union and kept in slavery those within it’s lines it had the power to free.Then,the Hampton Roads peace conference of Febuary 1865,Lincoln and Sumner would give the South full voting rights to kill any emansipation amendments(13th) IF they would rejoin the Union. As long as the South submitted to federal rule the could keep their slaves.And last,look at the results,the Union abandoned the ex slaves completely in 1876 for the sake of a single presidental election.Did the Union shed all that blood and treasure just to giveup their gains only 10 years after the won them,leaving the ex slaves in a condition roughly as bad as slavery for the next 100 years? This whole idea of abolition as the war aim is the largest red herring ever drug across the trail of humanity. One day America will be forced to face facts,the South was fighting a war of self-determination and the North was fighting a war of subjugation.
Does anyone question the timing of the release of this book, and why Dred Scott? Do the means justify the ends? What America are we talking about anyway because there are many depending on your freedom of perspective? The African slaves after the Civil Wars, and as is mentioned above, somehow, continued to progress inspite of the political, social and economical difficulties. Although not well publicized, between 1865 and 1965, these African slaves were able to create colleges, banks, insurance companies, buy homes, as well as, perserve and grow their families. If the intent of the book was to qualify the origin of the civil war, it hit its mark. But why. Over 600k men died to solidify the Union and establish the Federal Government and President as commander in chief. It also reminds me that though brave and loyal, our ‘leaders’ continue to use those attributes to control the American people. Maybe that was an unwanted side effect of writing a book such as this. I believe that being American is about being willing to work to improve your plight in life. To our credit, there is still no other country in the world that peacefully and intelligently lives in such harmony. Our song is one the world wishes it could sing. Dred Scott was a black man who the Supreme Court and the Civil War said was the property of a white man. Some may still say that that was not the problem or the cause for war.
To RickyD,
That’s all well and good for you to sing the praises of “your” political structure and your glee over the fact that an immorally and unjustly “enslaved” Afrikan could address his grievance to the Supreme, court, as you indicated previously, whether his grievance was redressed, and justice aerved is not relevant in your mind, however the fact remains, (ACSR’s) are still not free, we are not Citizens, and the fact that 600,000 chose to fight and die, has nothing to do with the fact that “LIBERTY” IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, until we have the right to choose all this so called progress you spout about is meaningless.
Government that governs without the “true consent” not imposed nationality and forced assimalation of the people is TRYANNY.
As is the case of enslaved African people, and their descendents, prisoners of war, Afrikan Captive Survivor Refugess, in the land of the “free”…..No choice, no freedom!
Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators. — Hitler
“TO INHERIT THE GOV. IS TO INHERIT THE PEOPLE, LIKE FLOCKS & HEARDS”
“All” hereditary government is in its nature tyranny. An
heritable crown, or an heritable throne, or by what other
fanciful name such things may be called, have no other
significant explanation than that mankind are heritable
property. To inherit a government, is to inherit the people,
as if they were flocks and herds.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tyranny
http://www.directblackaction.com
http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.”
President Bill Clinton, U.S.A. Today, 11 March 1993
The strength and genius of the individual person are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favour of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity. And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations and eternal peace. — Hitler
Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators. — Hitler
All this talk about “free country”, “liberty” and such…what kind of country can make these claims when it invaded and killed those that didn’t share it’s opinion of their common agreement? How can it be that a country born of secession would kill what it claimed were it’s own citizens for exercising secession? How is it good and honorable to subjugate 5.5 million to give semi-freedom to 3.5 million? I have always found it hard to take all this “freedom” fluff seriously….when the federal branch was tested on the scale of freedom,it failed horrificly.
“The thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were designed mainly for the protection of the newly emancipated negroes, but full effect must, nevertheless, be given to the language employed. The thirteenth amendment provides, that ‘neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.’ If honestly received and fairly applied, this provision would have been enough to guard the rights of the colored race. In some states it was attempted to be evaded by enactments cruel and oppressive in their nature – as, that colored persons were forbidden to appear in the towns, except in a menial capacity; that they should reside on and cultivate the soil without being allowed to own it; that they were not permitted to give testimony in cases where a white man was a party. They were excluded from performing particular kinds, of business, profitable and reputable, and they were denied the right of suffrage. To meet the difficulties arising from this state of things, the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were enacted.” U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. 829 (1873).
This new citizenship was designed to provide “protection” for a class of persons that had been previously vulnerable to attack subsequent to their emancipation from indentured servitude. As such, the federal government created for the emancipated slaves a “citizenship” they could present in court in lieu of being a Citizen of the state in which they inhabited. This is a direct consequence of the ignorance of many of our ancestors who held onto foolish notions of “classes” of people within a free society. The issue was raised prior to the Civil War in the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sanford. Scott was a slave by birth who found himself in Illinois and then Wisconsin territory for nearly ten years before the death of his owner, originally from Missouri. Scott brought his suit in court for freedom under the theory that his residence in free United States territory as well as the free state of Illinois made him a free man. Chief Justice Taney held, for the majority, that not only was Scott a slave but that he had no standing to sue as he was not a citizen of the United States.
What is most fascinating is the argument written by Justice Curtis in the dissenting opinion. He espoused and broke down a theory grounded in international law, a concept long held as in itinere and suggested this principle applied in the Scott case by virtue of his master’s choice to remain domiciled in the Wisconsin territory. Curtis suggested that the masters decision to take up residence there, and permit Scott to marry in that territory (at Fort Snelling) laid down sufficient grounds for the argument that Scott was not only a resident of Wisconsin at the time, but that his being allowed to marry was akin to being vested a property right. Curtis cited previous decisions that showed a bequest of property from master to slave evidenced intent to grant his freedom since only a freeman could take and hold such a bequest (Legrand v. Darnell, 2 Pet. R., 664). It was of course not sufficiently convincing to sway seven of the nine justices on the court. But the maxim of law laid down in the dissent sheds light to what the fourteenth amendment actually performed in law a decade later:
http://www.commonlawvenue.net
http://www.freedomlifenow.com
http://www.worldreports.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca
It has been my long held belief that the war between the states was not about perserving the union but about Tariffs, The revenue for the fed goverment was derived from tariffs which were primarly from the south importing from Europe with out these tariffs the fed would run out of money .and the blocade of southern ports was to collect that revenew