Myths of American Slavery

by Walter Kennedy

  An examination of the life of Lincoln will demonstrate that rather than being a great liberator of men, Lincoln was the destroyer of constitutional liberty and the instigator of oppressive government in the United States. A quick look at Lincoln's record is enough to prove just how far he pushed the United States away from the goal of secure liberty. During his administration, Lincoln's government was responsible for shutting down more than three hundred newspapers. These were not all Southern newspapers; they were Northern newspapers such as the New }'ork World and the Chicago Times. With his suspension of the right of habeas corpus, Lincoln trampled upon hundreds of years of Anglo- Saxon judicial and political progress. According to the laws of the United States, the legislative and not the executive branch of government has the authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus. This is a safeguard to prevent the establishment of executive tyranny. Lincoln succeeded in evading this safeguard. As a result of his suspension of habeas corpus, more than fourteen thousand civilians (Northerners) were imprisoned during the War. These civilians were then brought before military courts rather than civil courts. During Lincoln's administration, Federal censorship of the mails was introduced, and a witch hunt for "disloyal" Federal employees was initiated. All this from a man who took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution." What good is a constitution if the most basic liberties of the people cannot be protected by it?

  No doubt, the most flagrant "un-American" act committed by the Lincoln administration was the arrest and banishment of Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham. Congressman Vallandigham was an Ohio Democrat who opposed the use of force to restore the Union. As such, he led the opposition to the Lincoln administration in Congress. In February of 1863 Vallandigham spoke out against a Lincoln-backed bill. In part he stated:

  Sir, some two hundred years ago, men were burned at the stake, subjected to the horrors of the Inquisition, to all the tortures that the devilish ingenuity of man could invent-for what? For opinions on questions of religion-of man's duty and relation to his God. And now, to-day, for opinions on questions political, under a free government, in a country whose liberties were purchased by our fathers by seven years' outpouring of blood, and expenditure of treasure-we have lived to see men, the born heirs of this precious inheritance, subjected to arrest and cruel imprisonment at the caprice of a President, or a secretary, or a constable.

  What is it, sir, but a bill to abrogate the Constitution, to repeal all existing laws, to destroy all rights, to strike down the judiciary, and erect, upon the ruins of civil and political liberty, a stupendous superstructure of despotism.`-'?

  In almost prophetic language, Vallandigham continued his attack on this bill that would put into the hands of provost marshals the right to determine what is and is not a treasonable act or speech.

  Your petty provost marshals are to determine what treasonable practices are and "inquire into," detect, spy out, eavesdrop, ensnare, and then inform, report to the chief spy at Washington. These, sir, are now to be our American liberties under your Administration. There is not a crowned head in Europe who dare venture on such an experiment.... Words, too-conversation or public speech-are to be adjudged "treasonable practices." Men, women, and children are to be hauled to prison for free speech. Whoever shall denounce or oppose this Administration-whoever may affirm that war will not restore the Union, and teach men the gospel of peace, may be reported and arrested, upon some old grudge, and by some ancient enemy, it may be, and imprisoned as guilty of a treasonable practice.28

  All that Congressman Vallandigham had warned America about was eventually visited upon him. While running for governor of Ohio, Vallandigham was arrested, tried, and sentenced by the military. He was subsequently banished from the United States by the Lincoln administration.

  Lincoln's flagrant disregard for constitutional liberty was so bold as to deny accused prisoners the right of counsel. Lincoln's secretary of state, William H. Seward, gave orders that prisoners were not to be allowed to secure the service of an attorney for their defense. Seward had the following letter read to the prisoners:

  I am instructed, by the Secretary of State, to inform you, that the Department of State, of the United States, will not recognize any one as an attorney for political prisoners, and will look with distrust upon all applications for release through such channels; and that such applications will be regarded as additional reasons for declining to release the prisoners.29

  In another letter on the same subject, Seward advised Lincoln's political prisoners who had engaged the assistance of lawyers "that they are expected to revoke all such engagements now existing, and avoid any Never in American history have civilians been arrested and incarcerated by the military on such a scale. Lincoln took this action in direct and palpable disregard of the Constitution. At this point one must wonder, "What kind of Union did Lincoln save?"

  As sad as these events were, any American who feels a patriotic rush at the sound of the tune "The Star-spangled Banner," will forever be embarrassed by Lincoln's actions in Maryland. After the secession of the Upper South, Lincoln's government became paranoid about the possibility of Maryland seceding and joining the Confederate States. Even though the leaders of Maryland's legislature had declared that "such fears are without just foundation,"-"] Lincoln's government ordered the arrest, in flagrant violation of every constitutional safeguard, of prominent citizens of that state.

  It will be remembered that the Mayor of the city of Baltimore, the Police Commissioners, the Marshal of Police, members of the State Legislature, and private citizens, not only of that city, but from all parts of the State, were arrested and thrown into prison, by the edict of Abraham Lincoln, and kept for months, without any warrant of law whatever.32

  One of the citizens to be taken into custody was the grandson of the author of "The Star-spangled Banner," Francis Key Howard. It will be remembered that Francis Scott Key wrote the national anthem while a prisoner on board a British warship. The British at that time were attacking Fort McHenry. Francis Scott Key's grandson, Francis Key Howard, would also become a prisoner-a prisoner within Fort McHenry, not outside of it-a prisoner bemoaning American tyranny, not praising the United States as the "home of the free."

  On the morning of September 13, 1861, Francis Key Howard was arrested on the authority of William H. Seward, secretary of state for the Lincoln administration. This was done without a warrant, and Howard was not even told of what crime he was charged. These and many other basic constitutional protections were utterly violated. Howard was taken from his home to Fort McHenry where he met newspaper publishers, members of the legislature, and other prominent citizens, all "state prisoners." Being a "state prisoner" in Fort McHenry had a special meaning to Francis Key Howard:

  When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, then a prisoner on a British ship, witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry. When, on the following morning, the hostile fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the "Star-spangled Banner." As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving, at the same place, over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have

  Howard, among other political or "state prisoners," remained imprisoned for more than a year. During that time they were only allowed limited correspondence and were denied the right of consulting attorneys for their assistance. During his imprisonment, Howard gave vent to his feelings about the abuse of American civil rights:

  To have imprisoned men solely on account of their political opinions, is enough to bring eternal infamy on every individual connected with the Administration; but the manner in which we have been treated since our confinement, is, if possible, even more disgraceful to them. I should have supposed that, if the Government chose to confine citi
zens because their sentiments were distasteful to it, it would have contented itself with keeping them in custody, but would have put them in tolerably comfortable quarters.... If I had been told, twelve months ago, that the American people would ever have permitted their rulers, under any pretence whatever, to establish such a despotism as I have witnessed, I should have indignantly denied the assertion; and if I had been then told that officers of the Army would ever consent to be the instruments to carry out the behest of 'a vulgar dictator, I should have predicted that they would rather have stripped their epaulets from their shoulders. But we live to learn; and I have learned much in the past few months.

  Fourteen months after his arrest, Francis Key Howard was released from prison. Howard and many other Marylanders had refused an early release because that release was based upon their accepting the government's charge that they were criminals. Instead, without the benefit of legal counsel, they remained in prison while denouncing the tyranny of the Lincoln administration. As Howard stated:

  Each ... had determined at the outset to resist, to the uttermost, the dictatorship of Abraham Lincoln ... We came out of prison as we had gone in, holding in the same just scorn and detestation the despotism under which the country was prostrate, and with a stronger resolution than ever to oppose it by every means to which, as American freemen, we had the right to resort.34

  In his treatise on slavery, St. George Tucker described three forms of slavery: domestic slavery-the ownership of one person by another; civil slavery-the reduction of an individual's liberty by an abusive government; and political slavery-the denial by one nation of another nation's right of self-government. Although he is credited with freeing many slaves, which has been shown he did not do, Lincoln was responsible for the introduction into America of two forms of slavery which our Founding Fathers and patriots of 1776 had eliminated. With the introduction of Federal censorship of the mails, the arbitrary military arrest of civilians, the illegal suspension of habeas corpus, the suspension of elected legislatures, the jailing of political opponents, and the total abridgement of the First Amendment right of the press, Lincoln gave the United States its first real taste of civil slavery since the expulsion of King George's army. As commander-in-chief of the United States military, Lincoln directed the invasion and conquest of thirteen sovereign states that had allied themselves together and established the Confederate States of America. In so doing, Lincoln ushered in an age of American international conquest. The Confederacy, Cuba, Hawaii, Panama, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines have all fallen victims to the Yankee aggressor. These nations were denied their right to govern themselves as they saw fit (i.e., government by the consent of the governed), and therefore are reduced to political slavery. Rather than being the great standard-bearer for the flag of freedom, Abraham Lincoln was the purveyor of political and civil slavery.

  SUMMARY

  No one should ever challenge Abraham Lincoln's stated antislavery views. The record is replete with accounts of his speaking out against the evil of slavery. But in this view, Lincoln differed little from other Americans who likewise saw slavery as an evil that needed to be abolished. There were many Americans, including Southerners, who were even bolder in their efforts to end slavery than Lincoln. St. George Tucker of Virginia was an early advocate of ending slavery and also was one of the first Americans of prominence to question discriminatory laws against free people of color. Robert E. Lee not only ridiculed the institution of slavery but, at great personal expense to himself, freed his slaves. Nevertheless, it is Lincoln, who never freed any slaves for which he suffered pecuniary loss, and, it is Lincoln, who never sought social justice for freed slaves, who is the icon of liberty and equality in America today. Just as in every other issue that surrounds the question of slavery, common knowledge and historical fact are often at odds. Lincoln's abuse of freedom and liberty of American citizens (most of whom were Northerners) is enough to rank him as an American tyrant. His actions against Maryland alone would be sufficient to secure for him that just title. Is it any wonder that the state song of Maryland states:

  The despot's heel is on thy shore, Maryland! My Maryland!

  His torch is at thy temple door, Maryland! My Maryland!

  Avenge the patriotic gore

  That flecked the streets of Baltimore,

  And be the battle queen of yore,

  Maryland! My Maryland!35

  MYTH: Lincoln freed the slaves.

  REALITY: The slaves of the United States were ultimately freed by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Both as a candidate for office and in his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated that he would not interfere with slavery where it then existed. As shown by his own words, his view of slavery and "the colored race" was subservient to his war objectives. The Emancipation Proclamation clearly stated that the only slaves that were to be freed were those slaves within the states or portion of those states that were in "rebellion" against Federal authority. All other slaves were left as if the document had never been written. Lincoln said he freed the slaves where he had no power to do so; yet, in those areas where he did have the power to free slaves, he did not do so.

  MYTH: Lincoln was a friend to African-Americans.

  REALITY: Lincoln's views of African-Americans were little or no different from the views held by the majority of Americans of his day, North or South. Lincoln viewed the African in America as an inferior being who could not be trusted with an independent life within a free nation. Although this view is scoffed at today, it was commonly held during the nineteenth century, and its influence reached into every aspect of life that dealt with the issue of slavery and African-American freedom. The very words of Lincoln, "I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race," would scandalize anyone advocating such a policy today. Yet, this was Lincoln's view. Some have postulated that his views on white supremacy changed just before his death. If so, there is little proof to maintain that theory. What is for sure is that Lincoln's white supremacy views were maintained by the bulk of Americans both North and South for almost hundred years after his death. Lincoln does not sound like a great benefactor of the (using one of his less offensive terms) "colored race."

  MYTH: Of all of America's leaders, Abraham Lincoln had the greatest influence.

  REALITY: While it is beyond doubt that Lincoln and his administration have had the most pronounced influence upon the art of government in the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, the question is of the nature of that change in government. Lincoln did enforce the authority of the Federal government throughout the Southern states, but in so doing he destroyed the concept of a Union of sovereign states. Beyond that fact, how has the nature of the Federal government changed since Lincoln?

  Most people accept the idea that the South after the War was dramatically changed, but what about the change in the nation as a whole? Seventy years after the Constitution was ratified, Lincoln was elected president. During that seventy years it was not unusual at all to hear people say that "these United States are" a great republic. This was because the United States was not thought of as a single republic but as a republic of republics. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison referred to the proposed nation as a "compound republic."36 Many other commentators have referred to the United States as a "republic of republics." As William Rawle pointed out in his textbook on the Constitution, the one unequivocal constitutional requirement for a state to be a member of the Union is that it be and remain a republic.37 Each state (i.e., republic), uniting with its sister republics, forms a compound republic or a republic of republics-these United States of America. That concept changed after the South was denied its right to self-government at the end of the War for Southern Independence.

  As a result of Lincoln's administration, much more about the United States has changed. Before Lincoln's war, the Federal government's total revenue did not exceed 2 percent of the national economic output. Now, more than 135 years after the
War, the Federal government requires revenues in the amount of at least 20 percent of the nation's economic output. Before the War, most Americans never came into contact with a Federal official unless it was at the local post office. Lincoln's government instituted drafts, high taxes, regulations, and surveillance in unparalleled proportions. Today it is impossible to do the most mundane act without coming into contact or conflict with some Federal law, regulation, or decree. Big government requires big revenues. Lincoln gave America big government. Big intrusive government is exactly what the Founding Fathers in 1776 were fighting against.

  MYTH: Lincoln was elected as president and therefore had a mandate to "save the Union."

  REALITY: Regardless of how many or how few votes any candidate receives, the president has only one mandate and that is to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States."';" We will not retrace the litany of constitutional abuses by Lincoln already cataloged in this chapter, but a review of his assault upon the Constitution proves that he did not keep his pledge to "protect and defend the constitution." Even if it is assumed that by a majority vote of the people of the United States, a president could be licensed to abuse the Constitution, Lincoln still falls short of obtaining that prerogative. In his first election, Lincoln received slightly more than 39 percent of all votes cast for president. No less that 60 percent of American voters voted for someone other than Lincoln-not too much of a "mandate." Most Americans believe that by the election for his second term as president, Lincoln was elected by an overwhelming majority of the voters. How could Americans who knew him best not vote for their emperor-god? It is true that Lincoln defeated his Democratic challenger in 1864. Yet, the vote tally is very enlightening. Out of a total vote of approximately 4,000,000 votes, Lincoln won by only 400,000 votes. The vote count was Lincoln 2,200,000, and Gen. George McClellan 1,800,000. It must be remembered that this was not a complete "American" vote count. Southerners were voting against Lincoln, not with ballots (since he was not on Southern state tickets), but with bullets (with Southern blood, sweat, and tears). If the uncounted Southern vote is added to the Northern anti-Lincoln vote, it is clear that Abraham Lincoln was a minority presidenttherefore, where is the mandate?