Whitewashing the South and slandering Lincoln

I got a question for you. Do you believe that the Civil War was all about tariffs that the North was imposing on the South? Do you believe that Lincoln did not really care about slavery? Do you believe that slavery was dying out on its own and that the South would have ended it peacefully without the Civil War?

If you profess to believe those things you are either ignorant or a liar.

Sad to say, you are probably either a Conservative or a Libertarian as well. It has become a trend in such circles to slander Lincoln and whitewash the South. I must confess that if it were liberals saying these types of things, I would not bother to even take notice.

But when lies that would shame a holocaust denier are spewing forth from the so-called friends of liberty, I feel compelled to register my objections in the strongest possible terms. They lie and it is plain for any honest man to see.

Take their absurd claim that the civil war was about the oppressive tariffs that the North was imposing on the poor persecuted South. Tell me, if tariffs were such a big issue why did the Democratic Party split over the issue of slavery in the territories? Why did the Southern candidate (John Cabell Breckinridge) campaign on the issue of slavery in the territories?

It is clear from even a cursory reading of history that if the South had been willing to compromise with the northern Democrats, Lincoln would never have been elected. And why did the South split the Democratic ticket? Because they believed that it was their right to expand slavery into all the federal territories and they would not accept Stephen Douglas’s idea that the territories should be allowed to vote on the matter. This issue, and not tariffs, is what broke the Democratic Party and allowed Lincoln to come to power. This issue is also the reason that Lincoln was so vilified in the South, for he believed that slavery should be excluded from the federal territories.

The facts of history are clear. It was South’s desire to expand slavery at all costs that lead to the Civil War.

Those “friends of liberty” who would try to whitewash the South must know that their case is weak. For they must stoop to slandering Abraham Lincoln by saying that he did not truly care about the fate of the slaves. If it was all about tariffs, why try so hard to prove that Lincoln did not care about the slaves?

But if it were not for the fact that people will swallow any lie if it tickles their fancy, arguing that Lincoln did not care about the slaves would be a cause for laughter. To believe this lie people must ignore the very testimony of the South itself. If there be any honest man among those who believe that Lincoln did not care for the slaves I bid you to read this pamphlet.

If you can read that pamphlet and still believe that Lincoln was no friend of the slaves you are beyond hope. For that pamphlet was written by people living in slave states for the purpose of attacking Lincoln. To disbelieve its portrayal of Lincoln is to call the south a liar. If you say you have too hard of a time reading the entire pamphlet (a problem I can well believe that those who come up with such ignorant slander would have), then I bid you read this page of Pamphlet alone. (start with the header that says “Negro equality under the Declaration of Independence”)

If you are honest enough to admit that the South left the Union because of the issue of slavery, and if you are honest enough to admit that the South hated Lincoln because of his views on slavery and not his economic program, then can you really think that it is reasonable to believe that slavery would have died a slow death if the South had been allowed to leave the Union?

If it was so important to the South that they be guaranteed the right to expand slavery into the federal territories that they were willing to break up the Democratic party and insure the election of Lincoln, can you really think that they would have ceased trying to expand slavery once they were out? After all, it was the south that was the driving force behind the unjust war against Mexico in the first place.

We can reasonably assume that by breaking the back of the South, Lincoln saved Mexico from being the next slave state. What we can’t reasonably assume is that a South that was so desperate to expand slavery that it created the political climate necessary to bring their worst enemy to power would have tolerated the gentle decline of their peculiar institution. See the Essay of the Week over at the Ethereal Voice for more on this subject.

The lies spewing forth from certain Libertarians and Conservatives tells of something dark in the midst of those who say that they hold liberty dear. Why they feel compelled to whitewash the enemies of liberty and slander the friends of liberty I can not say. But I am afraid that the liberty they profess to hold dear is not something that I would recognize from the Declaration of Independence.

3 Responses to “Whitewashing the South and slandering Lincoln”

  1. […] The Ape man is so excited that he is frothing at the mouth in this week’s rant. We think that he might be going a little over the top, but we are afraid to tell him so. […]

  2. Brazil abolished slavery without a war in 1888. In 1871, the “Free Womb” law passed, making all children of slave mothers free at birth. In 1885 the “Sexagenarian Law” passed, freeing all slaves when they reached 65, and in 1888 slavery was abolished in its entirety.

    The U.S. Civil War started in 1861, and the official story was that it was being fought to preserve the Union, which continued to include slave states. Pressure for emancipation grew in the North, and in 1862-1863 Lincoln used his war powers to issue proclamations that declared slaves free in rebel States. It was part of a strategy, combined with blockade and the depredations of Sherman, among other things, to destroy the Southern economy.

    If the Confederacy had simply been allowed to secede, where would the room to expand, apparently necessary to the slave system, have come from? Would slavery have been compatible with a more advanced technology? Would the South have evolved toward emancipation, as did Brazil? In fact, by 1876, white supremacy came roaring back, not seriously challenged until 3/4 of a century later.

    The “what ifs” are all conjectural history, of course, but whatever the truth and whatever the real goal of the North’s war, the 600,000 dead and countless maimed was a very high price to pay, as was the unleashing of industrial-scale warfare. The carnage of the Civil War was unrivaled until the maniacal slaughter of World War I, fought, if one accepts the sanctimony of Woodrow Wilson, to “make the world safe for democracy,” but in fact opening the door to Bolshevism, fascism and Nazism.

  3. […] If you will remember, I did a rant back on Lincoln’s birthday badmouthing those conservatives and libertarians who serve as apologists for the pre Civil War South. I was not gentle with my criticism. […]

Leave a Reply