Historical Ignorance II
Walter E Williams - 15 July 2015
We call the war
of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two
or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate
President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than
George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776
and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to
sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about
slavery?
Was President
Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an
1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now
repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power
outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with
slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois,
speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery
may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not
understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created
equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said,
"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."
What about
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the
matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon
according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of
the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation
would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something
more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was
going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the
Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation
Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where
slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the
United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion -- such
as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation
Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state,
William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by
emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage
where we can set them free."
Lincoln did
articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the
Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power,
have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new
one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which
the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any
portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much
of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848
speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas
from Mexico.
Why
didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the
money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the
only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the
1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid
75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would
let that much revenue go?
Walter E.
Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
No comments:
Post a Comment