This was very difficult for me to read because of my affection for President Lincoln. Sadly, after reading this, so much makes sense and so many questions I had were answered. There were so many things that didn't ad up in my head about the war and this period of time and why things are the way they are today. I knew that Lincoln had done things that violated the constitution, so I chalked it up to ... "Well, it was war." I knew he had uttered words that showed he was racist. I never understood how someone of the caliber of Robert E. Lee could have fallen to the side of slavery even under the banner of state's rights. Now I do. I am not one who's beliefs can not be challenged by truth. No matter how devastating to my very soul, I would rather every foundational belief I stood on crumble to the ground than remain ignorantly proud on a pedestal of lies believed. Thank you for being truthful about one of my undeserved heroes. NEVER put your faith in anyone but God. I have every intention of studying whatever I can find on the truth of Lincoln.

Thank you for the education, Patriot Post.

Excellent article. My thoughts and beliefs most of my adult life. Lincoln was corrupt and a usurper of Liberty on a grand scale. As you say, the winners of any war/conflict have the privilege of writing history. For all of the unearned kudos, the praise, etc., etc., one thing remains true. Even though Lincoln was assassinated on Good Friday, the tyrant didn't rise from the dead. Thanks for the truth.

Truth is truth. So often it is distorted, using lies to get to an end. Thank you for this post lest we forget that the confederate states did fought for the constitution and the north against it. Let us also not forget that the black slave industry was begotten by blacks. Nor should we forget the countless other slaves who went forward quietly. Those slaves were Chinese, Italians, Irish and many other immigrants who where hijacked to create among other things our rail systems. My great grandfather was hijacked along with hundreds of other Italian immigrants at Elis Island and taken to the west to build railroads. And yet such med as Jesse Jackson would paint him with the same brush as a slave holder. Discrimination lives, unfortunately I find it more with my black brethren who continue to spew hatred against all whites, embrace foreign religions such as Islam only to find excuses to further hate whites. It is time for Martin Luther Kings dream to come true, but it is not the white population that prevents it any longer. In a single year, Obama has done more to divide us than unite us. He is a president for his own legacy. One that puts foreign interests ahead of this nations. Special interests ahead of the citizens who elected him. He has failed to fulfill any of the promises he made to get elected. Where is the Tea Party? It must be American in nature, Black, White, Red, Yellow. It must be focused on what we will leave our children. For in the words of Patrick Henry - GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

Growing up in the Deep South, I was exposed to much of the truth of Lincoln and his "total war" from my older relatives...my Great Grandfather wouldn't wear blue for any reason until his death.

The period between 1860 and 1965 were referred to as the "time of the Yankee Invasion". No, I didn't mean 1865...1965. It took almost 100 years for the South to recuperate from this Yankee Invasion.

Glad to see the truth finally come out about this liar.

I understand all of your points. However, you may want to consider another viewpoint from the Claremont Institute: http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1587/article_detail.asp

The author, Mackubin Thomas Owens, quotes that same Lincoln passage about saving the union, and goes on to say:

'But this often misunderstood passage conceals an important point: for Lincoln, the Union and the Constitution that he sought to save were not ends in themselves but the means to something else. He saw the Constitution principally as a framework for sharing power within a republican government. This was the real thing he aimed to preserve because only republican government was capable of protecting the liberty of the people. He understood the Declaration of Independence as the foundation of such a government, and the Constitution as the means of implementing it. To achieve the end of preserving republican liberty, he had to choose the means necessary and proper under the circumstances and it is by his end and his choice of means that we must judge Lincoln's claim of a war power, the balance he struck between liberty and security, his response to secession, his decision for emancipation, and the strategy he employed to fight the war.'

Sincerely,

Steve Erbach

Neenah, WI

I would encourage all to read the book "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" by Jefferson Davis. It is a well written book that should be taught in our schools, ah but that is another government entity that lost its rudder decades ago.

Jefferson Davis was a scholarly gentleman who stood for state rights and was not in favor of secession. He believed in state rights and loved the republic but learned that certain powers obstruct the good of many.

Interestly enough, after the Emancipation Proclaimation was signed, slavery continued in the North until the passage of the 14th Amendment. Ulysses S. Grant and his wife owned 6 slaves and refused to free them until the passage of the 14th amendment. Grant is quoted as saying (in defense of his actions) "Good house help is hard to find". If anyone is interested in "the other side of the story" there are two books written by James Ronald Kennedy, one is titled "The South Was Right" and the other "Was Jefferson Davis Right?". The hypocrisy would be amusing if not so preverted. It was immoral and illegal to own another human being, but it was ok to work men, women and children (of all races)to death in the mines and factories (and railroad construction) in the North. Both of the books above give a clear and concise view of the issues that lead up to the War of Northern Aggression, and slavery, while a catalyst, was not the primary cause of the war. Make no mistake, I do not condone slavery in any form, but it happened. We must understand that at the time it occured, it was an accepted practice (every great civilation was founded on the practice of slavery). Many of our Founding Fathers practiced it, and many more profitted from it. Benjamin Franklin owned a portion of a company that imported slaves to the US, while actually decrying the institution.

Sadly enough, our schools no longer teach history in its purist form, we only teach a highly sanitized version, and our children do not know the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They are not taught what the Founding Fathers objectives were or why they so strongly believed in those objectives. They are not taught that the Founding Fathers each paid an unbelievable price for standing up and speaking out against the tyranny of King George.

The one thing that Government fears beyond all others is an educated, informed, active citizenry.

As a historian, I have encouraged my children to know the truth, as ugly as it may be, to dig deep and study hard because the survival of our Nation depends on it.

Sincerely,

Raymond

I had stumbled upon the truth of Lincoln and the Civil War about ten years ago. What an eye-opener THAT was. All those history lessons that taught the North was right and the South was wrong were nothing more than smoke and mirrors. When I realized that the South's primary focus was on States' rights, not slavery, and that the war was fought to determine which had more authority, the state or the nation, I almost wished the south had won.

The war was fought over MONEY. In 1859, there were more millionaires in the Natchez and Vicksburg than all the Capitols of Europe combined, and it scared the Northern Bankers to death. There was a very strong middle class in the South as well, and at that time, the North was strongly divided into rich and poor (there was a middle class but it was small). If I remember my numbers correctly, and please forgive me if I misquote, in 1859, the South exported $87 million dollars in products, most of this was cotton, but many other products were also exported. The North (at the same time period) exported a little over $9 million dollars worth of products.

When the Statue of Liberty was being discussed, the American Aristocracy (most of whom lived in New York on Fifth Avenue) were opposed because it might cause an uprising amoung the "lower classes"

Mark,

You all have lost the bubble. Trashing Abraham Lincoln in the way you have done is despicable.

The way you framed the issues is totally out of balance.

137 years after the Emancipation Proclamation have not dimmed the significance.

I guess that makes me abusive and off-topic in my comments.

However, a fighter pilot is always going to speak to the truth of the issues as he sees them.

VR, Tom Wiley, Col USAF Retired

God; Guns; and Guts made us free at ANY COST keep all three.

Long live States Rights! And to Hell with Obama.

God Bless the United States of America and all who fought/fight for her.

I'd been fed the standard history of Lincoln the Emancipator in elementary school. Years later, I began to learn, bit by bit, that the picture I had was not quite right. (It had always seemed strange to me that states had the right to join the Union, but not the right to withdraw.) I feel that I was sold a bill of goods in my school history. Lincoln was not the person most of us have been led to believe.

While I am not afraid to give up my ill placed reverence for Lincoln, I am disheartened that once again we are fighting the Civil War here. Those who think the South was blameless vs those who think the North was righteous. NOTHING can absolve the South of it's indefensible and evil institution of slavery. NEITHER side was innocent. NEITHER. Not your precious South or my beloved North. We're ALL mixed up in this. As a nation we have had to pay the penalty of that sin and it haunts us to this day. I don't know what is more pathetic... the ignorance of Southern "Pride" or the shame of Northern arrogance. The truth of Lincoln does in NO way, shape, or form absolve the south of taking it's bread from the sweat of another man's brow. Of it's indescribable treatment of black men and women. But the North is JUST as guilty. Understand the past, learn from it, get over it, then get on with it.

The only down side of the Patriot Post being an online source is one can't hold the message in his hand. I have been called many names for trying to enlighten associates regarding President Lincoln and slavery. In reality, imposing too much federal government was the reason for the civil war, NOT SLAVERY. Being 60 years old, I have heard the question, "who was your favorite president?" I would guess that one third of those people asked have said "Abe." When asked why, it's always the same, he freed the slaves.

Dear old Abe was the first to attempt to end States Rights. It is true that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson really fired up progressive federalism and shifted the elitism that "we the people" have been fighting since.

As an avid 912 Project member, we (and like minded groups) are fighting the battle that Abe got rolling. Now we fight to stave off socialism from a president that is using Saul Alinsky's play book to enslave the entire nation. Thanks Abe!

I love The Patriot Post and have for years...you can disregard my first sentence, I have a printer. :)

Remember the old saying "to the victor goes the spoils" and that includes the winner writes the history. Progressives continue to try and rewrite history today with their elitist mentality that ordinary citizens are too ignorant to recognize what's happening because our schools teach little history and lots of social engineering and brainwashing. Don't forget Lincoln also ordered the mass hanging of many Indian braves in Minnesota during the war for going on the warpath and killing many settlers, you find very little mention of this in mainstream history.

I believe that there are in excess of 1300 Pro Lincoln books written, vice 7 Pro Confederate. In the 30's in CA. the public schools always had a picture of Washington and another of Lincoln. We were taught about the Civil War based on one of the 1300 books. In a 1936 Armistice day parade in San Diego there were two tiny groups of Civil War Veterans along with Spanish American and WW-I Vets.

While wathing I wondered why the southern states wanted to seccede and was told by adults that it was about slavery. This was only partialy correct. Slaves were expensive property. The 13 colony's had agreed that any property illeagaly removed from one state to another had to be returned. This agreement was broken when Northern states refused to return slaves to ther rightfull owners. The major reason for legal secession was the same one that started the Revolutionary War; ie, taxation! The south was being taxed at 3 to 4 times the rate of the North, for their agricultural products; both while being exported and goods being imported. One of the several Federal tax houses in the South was the unfinished Fort Sumpter. In order to foment a pretext for war, Lincoln orderd the Fort to be occupied with local Federal troops and sent a supply ship with cannon and other armaments including more Federal troops. The South blocked the ship and fired on the Fort removing the few locol Fed. Troops. Lincoln, thus, had his excuse for the illegal war of Northern agression.

Asserting that the main reason my great grandfather took up arms in defense of his homeland was to preserve slavery is as ridiculous as saying that the main reason today's US servicemen and women are fighting in Iraq is to preserve abortion. What about it, Col. Wiley: Were you fighting to support a government that allows the murder of thousands of innocent human beings every year? Should you be vilified in perpetuity because you thought you were defending the Constitution?

My only comment on the article is that it would be nice to see the sources on those comments. In high school, I was required to show sources when I did a paper. Without the sources, we don't know if the comment was taken out of context or edited to say less than was intended. You have shown a few comments from Lincoln (and others) that I have seen before, and many that I have not. Sources, please.

Source: Common Sense

ScotsReb,

I don't know if your comment was directed at mine (it appears so), but "Common Sense" doesn't let me see where Lincoln actually is quoted as having said a particular comment. For example, in the article, it at one point quotes Lincoln from his fourth debate with Douglas. Fair enough, and easy enough to locate with Google. A few lines lower, Lincoln is quoted again, but no source. How does 'common sense' help me know that these were actually Lincoln's words, and that they were not taken out of context? Especially nowadays, with so many quotes mistakenly attributed to someone else, or in some cases, made up entirely.

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way arguing the content of this article. In fact, I have argued for years that our so called Civil War was in fact not about slavery, and have made a few people doubt their 'knowledge' of history concerning 'Saint Lincoln' by pointing out some of the very things mentioned in this article. I am not pro-Lincoln, as it were, or arguing the content. I am merely wanting to see the sources.

If you know the sources, please point them out.

Thanks.

This was a beautiful essay, but, for me, nothing new. I have known, and taught, these things about Lincoln for many years. Around 12 years ago or so, I saw an ad in 'JET' magazine for a book by a black author proclaiming "Lincoln didn't free any slaves". Unfortunately, I didn't have time to write down the name of the book or the author, but black Americans do know the truth, if they wish.

It was interesting that you didn't pursue the thought that Lincoln may have been influenced by Marxist philosophy, which caused so much political unrest and disruption in Europe from the 1840's on.

Anyway, it is true that seccession and warfare were brought about by issues of taxation and State's sovereignty, not slavery. No more than 25% of Confederate enlisted came from slave owning families, and barely 50% of Confederate officers did. As mentioned elsewhere, many Northern officers and enlisted were also slave owners.

My one question is about your comment that 'Obama' is "the nation's first half African-American president". As far as anyone seems to know, his mother was 100% European-Caucasian, which would make him at least 50% Caucasian. However, IF Barack Hussein Obama actually was the biological father of Barry Soetoro, listed as "Arab" on his Indonesian adoption papers, then the best publicized information would make him 6.25% African-Negro and 43.75% Arab-Caucasian, for a total of 93.75% Caucasian and only 6.25% Negro. The really interesting part is that his Arab ancestry in East Africa would have been slave-traders. There are other possible scenarios about this man's true history, but the one he chooses to present, should make him the least acceptable to Americans who descended from African slaves.

THE TRUTH WILL ABOUT ADOLF LINCOLN

Interesting. Probably historically accurate. Irrelevant windmill tilting.

The currently operational understanding of the Federal union is that it is based upon "constituent power," i.e., that the union is one created by "We the People," not the states and created "one nation, indivisible." The more exigent question is - how do we re-educate Americans about the limits of the Constitution, especially the Commerce Power and provide reasonable bounds upon the reach of the central government.

The author states "To that end, our Constitution's author, James Madison, in an 1825..." I believe a quick review of history will reveal that the actual author of our Constitution was a man named Gouvenor Morris.

As a curious aside , maybe not entirely coincidental , during the Spanish Civil War in 1939 , volunteers from the U.S.A. fought on what was called the Republican side against Franco's Nationalists . This volunteer group of zealots was called The Abraham Lincoln Brigade and was organized and staffed largely by communists . In fact , 16 communists were prosecuted here , by the FDR administration , for recruiting for the Lincoln Brigade . Isn't that a curious coincidence in the context of this blog ?

I greatly admire and follow, the work and words of PatriotPost (Mark Alexander and others I'm sure), so much of which is a strong and noble effort to embrace and assert those true foundations of our great American experiment.

But the annual attack on the Lincoln legacy has come early this year (it usually comes on his birthday). For those who don't know, this has been an annual rite for at least 3 years now, if not longer. There can be little debate that in many ways, the Lincoln legacy has been enshrined in mythic, idol-istic, worshipful status. But anyone who strives to truly and fully understand the profound convergence of political and cultural forces of the 1850's (and earlier) that led to violent result of the American civil war cannot possibly reduce Lincoln's contributions to a few negative bullet points OR suggest that Linclon's historical endurance is primarily (or completely?) a result of his assasination. A significant aspect of Lincoln's endurance is that he left a very long record of comprehensive and articulate arguments and positions that supported his many difficult decisions during an extraordinarily difficult time in the, then short history of this American experiment. Lincoln offered strong rebuttals to the critics of his day, and (I believe) to his critics today. But we have to examine the historical record carefully if we really want to understand. At the very least, we should be employing a comprehensive scholarship in understanding those events of the ACW, rather than merely "refighting" issues from either a northern or southern view.

We even get to see Godwin's law in action in the comments above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Again, kudos to PatriotPost, but on the matter of Lincoln and his legacy, a much broader and comprehensive examination of the history is sorely needed.

Respectfully,

I am glad to have finally encounterred a 'historian who has codified so much of what I had gleaned from older [much nearer to the events] history study. I am now 75. I remember much of what the south looked like in 1935. I remember much of the doctrines of states rights. I am almost glad that I will not live to see the final destruction of my homeland. I lament the ignorance [ignorance by choice is stupid] of the population of the US,and the lack of thinking ability thereof. There is now no recovery, only a delaying action for the US, before the final rapid plunge into a state of uselessness--sectional disintegration, brutal warlords, flagrent violence, rapine, and wanton distruction.

Raymond, writing above,is of course quite correct. The War of Northern Aggression was about the money, which is the feedstock of power. Power being the addiction and obsession of politicians.

Let me add a bit to Raymond's statement about wealth in the south, compared to the North. As colonies, we were required to buy almost everything we didn't produce ourselves, through England, AND we were forbidden to produce those things which were offered by merchants in England. Thus, there was no manufacturing base in America to start with. Such a base takes money and decades to build up.

The South, on the other hand, had crops, cotton , indigo, rice, sugar, and the list goes on. They could export, although ONLY through English middlemen, and reap the hard currency of other nations in exchange.

Thus, upon successful Revolution, and freed from England's former trade restrictions, the agricultural South could engage in international trade and wealth flowed into the South.

The North was simply not an agricultural engine and their only hope of international trade was manufacturing, but they didn't have the infrastructure, or even the capital necessary, to either initiate or sustain such an economy.

Politicians in Washington, being what they are and always have been, decided to redistribute the wealth of the South to the benefit of the North. The mechanism for that was the flurry of revenue items levied on the South. There were no debates in either the North or South regarding the moral evil of slavery. The only debates there were, and then only in the South, were about the monetary lifeblood of the South being sucked out of their veins by the North. That was the reason for secession. The only reason.

Lincoln did what all politicians do when placed in an untenable position, he changed the subject. He climbed on his high moral horse and proclaimed a moral Crusade against the South.

Whipping up the rabble he convinced them to engage in holy war against their countrymen. That enthusiasm lasted until the bodybags started to fill the awareness of the common citizens of the North. One million Americans, killed and crippled, because of one bipolar man in the wrong position.

Certainly, the obvious discrepancies between facts and stated intent were as obvious then as today, and they persist, as we see. The rage we see when Lincoln is criticized is characteristic of Cognitive Dissonance in action, when deeply held, but unsubstantiated beliefs are challenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I always agree with Mark, but this article was dead wrong, and many of the comments are very disappointing. For onece, I am ashamed of my fellow conservatives.

The 1st argument, that Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality therefore he deserves no credit for ending slavery, is the rough equivalent of those on the left who smear Washington and Jefferson as hypocrites for believing in equality while owning slaves. These men must be judged in the context of the times, and each in his own way did much to advance human liberty and equality. None were perfect, but of course no one ever is. If not for Lincoln, slaves would have endured many additional years of bondage. Lincoln's belief in white superiority does not make his desire for abolition and emancipation any less important.

The second argument is even worse. Of course the states knew that by ratifying the Constitution they were irrevocably subordinating themselves to the federal government. I agree that politicians today place far too much power in the hands of the federal government, and although Democrats are the worst offenders, Republicans are not blameless. But to suggest that the states could secede from the Union whenever they wished is to destroy the very possiblity of democracy. Lincoln recognized this. If every constituency who lost an election could secede to avoid accepting the will of the majority, then Aerica wouldn't be divided into 2 nations, it might be dozens of nations by now. States could secede any time they lost, for example, the West Coast and New England could have certainly seceded in 2004 when Bush was re-elected. The precedent would even allow counties to secede from states, which ironically, Lincoln permitted West Virginia to do. Cities and rural areas would separate. Balkanization would result. Secession would make democracy impossible. The minority must learn to win elections by making better arguments and persuading enough voters, while the majority must not trample on minority rights. But secession is and never was the answer.

In addition to all the rest of the disgusting reasons for the War Against the South, there are two that spring to mind:

1. Money - northern banks were infuriated that Southern banks could print their own money and that it had substantive and enduring value. The northern banks wanted THEIR money used, and no others - that way they could control its value to their benefit...wait, gee, they STILL do that...

2. Money - Lincoln was petrified about the loss of tax base for collecting money into the Federal chests. Yes - you can Google the quote...

If Lincoln was the husband, the South was the battered wife who was beaten repeatedly, chained to the stove and eventually shot for not being pleasing enough. He was a morbid character and his followers singlehandedly destroyed a large part of this country after his death, with the carpetbagger invasion. Slavery was wrong and a problem that needed solving. Destroying the people that inhabited the South was not the way to fix it and absolutely trashed the Constitution. So, do the ends justify the means? The communists have always felt so...

Is this the same writer who has written two books about Lincoln in this same vein. I would like to find those books if he is the one I am thinking of.

Lord Lincoln fails our Jefferson's test. His actions, unforgivable.

Kudos to the post. Note that the fiercest of the objections written by commentators above all have one commonality: they omit the facts to support their case.

Lincoln came after Jefferson, yet he failed to follow the principles left by Jefferson and our founders. How is forcing political bondage upon a people consistent will the emancipation of another people? From Jefferson's actions and writing, we know Jefferson was consistently principled; from Lincoln's, we know he was consistently expedient, advocating freedom when it served his cause, whilst simuntaneously stripping it wherever it obstructed his path. I would go as far as to say his actions, in regards to raging war on his own brothers, were not only unethical, but fundamentally unAmerican.

Lincoln "The Great Emancipator" ultimately provided more racial issues than if nothing had been done. Slaves were expensive to buy and maintain. With the advent of machinery, slaves would have been "invited" to go free. It also seems strange that so many blacks join the muslim religion... the major religion of those most responsible for procuring slaves for the US market.

I appreciate a more thorough treatment of Lincoln and the Civil War, but as an attorney, I would suggest considering several other points as well.

There were clearly inexcusable actions on Lincoln's part, as well as the North's, which we would do well not to hide. Yet nuances of Constitutional law at least lend some credence to certain parts of Lincoln's alleged unconstitutional measures, such as a clear Constitutional provision allowing the government to suspend a prohibition on the writ of habeus corpus "in times of rebellion". (Article 1, section 9). These nuances, and even occasionally clear Constitutional provisions, ought to be taken into account when determining whether Lincoln intentionally, or at times even truly, flew in the face of all the Constitution stood for, or acted in utter disregard for the rule of law.

In the same vein, to teach that Lincoln was in favor of absolute equality is clearly inaccurate. Yet to demonize him as merely using slavery for a political tool ignores the wealth of statements on slavery made long prior to the Civil War. Slavery was not, for Lincoln, an issue that he raised as a convenient excuse for conquest, he had a long and clear record of being opposed to it, one which was recognized by the South themselves in contemporary writings that took place after his election. Further, writings by him evidence that he did believe the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Confederate, as they were still technically not yet seceded, but were merely attempting secession, and that he had full confidence the courts would find so as well.

The idea that the South was merely exercising rights every Founding Father would have granted them, or that states could leave at any point, is made highly questionable by sections in the Constitution which expressly prohibit any state from "entering into a Confederation" entering into "any agreement with another state", and bar other actions which would allow any state or group of states to function as their own entity, such as "coin money". Furthermore, the strong view the Founding Father's possessed on Biblical government and God-granted authority lead them not just to form a new government, but gave them a grave respect for established governments. One of the defining differences between the American Revolution and other revolutions, was that it did NOT encourage the idea that if the government did something wrong, one could simply refuse to submit and decide make a new government. The idea that states could merely secede whenever they so desired is highly questionable, both given the Constitution itself, and the seriousness with which the Founders viewed government, and rebellion against it.

The idea that slavery was not the true cause of the war also ignores critical pieces of history, including each Southern state's declaration of war, statements by Southern legislators, and contemporary writings. For a brief introduction, see http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=92 .

Certainly, the issues are not as clear, nor Lincoln anywhere near as perfect, as current history tends to paint him. But neither is he as errant, nor the "real history" so starkly different, as this article would make it out to be.

Having grown up and learning history in school in Texas, I always felt there was more to the Civil War era than we were ever taught. I always felt slavery was the banner issue, but not the real underlying issue.

While recently watching the program Gods and Generals more in passing than with great interest at first, I was given to wonder if there was far more to the moral center of many of the southern military leaders than they were ever given proper credit for in history. I intend to read more about them now.

Not long afterward, while researching information for a story I was writing, I began to study more indepth information about Missouri during the Civil War. The things that Lincoln gave his military leaders permission to do to the poor people of Missouri sickened and made me so sad to know what they lived through at the hands of their own countrymen. Missouri was always glossed over in history class as 'neutral', but the people were treated with greater cruelty and harsh government than we were ever told in class.

Of course, there were atrocities perpetuated by both sides...that is the horror of war. Still, it is time that the whole story be told. It is time we stop being ashamed and made to think the Stars and Bars were a racially repressive representative of history to be hidden away out of shame. I don't mean that to sound like we should start a new Southern Revolution, only that we should stop being ashamed of things that perhaps were not as shameful as we were once made to think of our history.

"Implied, if not expressed"?

This is the first colossal example of errant constitutional interpretation, the advent of the so-called "Living Constitution".

______________________________________

I take issue with this claim. The first colossal example would have to be in Marbury v Madison, where CJ Marshall determined that the SCOTUS had the authority to alter The Constitution by invalidating any part of it that the SC determined to be "Unconstitutional". This could be traced back further to Hamilton's letters and reports from his office as Secretary of the Treasury, but Marshall was the one who really allowed the courts to overturn the will of the people and, with regards to The Constitution, lop off whatever limb they wished - expecting that the "living" document would heal over and continue to thrive.

That's my two cents...

How can some people look past the contribution, forced or otherwise, by black people to this nation? Black were good as long as they accept the roles of the owners, but quickley labed "radicals" and seen as a threat to the nation they have inhabited and developed. As far as machinery comment I ask you to look at the cruel treatment experienced by the blacks at the hands of Christians and Catholics. Civil Right movement began to come to the forefront in the 60's. Machinery, as we know it today did not come about until well after the 1900s that is a very long time. What is a point to take notice of is that blacks could cook your food, raise your children, take care of your homes and elderly family members but not sit in the same church, buy food at a restaurant without goin to the back or side door. Honestly it should prompt a lot of thought that what Adolf Lincoln was talking about is still alive and well as late as today. Catholocism embraced and sanctioned the taking and enslaving of millions of people destroying civilations and belief systems of people for which they did not understand. The same arrogant process of thinking is still prevelent in main stream society today, for instance, most American think that repatriating refugess from war torn regions of the world that these people should be happy and quick to adopt the ways and culture of the US. When this does not happen, some of people become offended if not infuriated and dont understand why. Some one should explain to them that the repatriated ones have a history and beleif system in place when they got to the US. Just think... you may have an anwswer to the question of why so many blacks have abandoned Chritianity and adopted a different belief system.

The Articles of Confederation, the original

document establishing a national government,

described the Union as perpetual. The term

perpetual was left out of the Preamble to

the new Constitution. Why, I have never found

a reason, perhaps an oversight. But that oversight

cost us 600,000 dead and much destruction.Further, there was no guuarantee that the "erring sisters" would have reunited. However, because of Mr Lincoln's Army and his Secretary of State, America entered the 20th Century, united and in possession Czarist Alaska, eventually to defeat Nazism and Communism. Lincoln was a politician. If John Wilkes Booth had missed, the Radical Republicans would have turned on Lincoln as they did Andrew Johnson.

For those who demand sources for the arguments in Alexander's excellent essay I suggest you read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo as a

starter. "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" by Jefferson Davis (mentioned above) is perhaps the best, but is difficult for someone in a hurry.

In stating his reasons for going to war, CSA President Jefferson Davis wrote this: 'What is the reason we are compelled to asset our rights? That the labor of our African slaves should be taken away by the federal government.' Alexander Stephens, his vice president, was even more forthright: 'The immediate cuse of our present revolution is the threat to the institution of slavery. Our new government is founded upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, the slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition'.

You're a principled man, Mark Alexander, but the slave states violated God's most basic principle of liberty for all--codified in the spirit of our union--the Declaration of Independence. You can run, with "secession", but you can't hide from God's union of natural law, the same one the slave states signed onto voluntarily. Time to quit blaming Lincoln for doing the heavy lifting when half the country wouldn't. Time to get over the collective guilt of that sin.

Now, however, the southern firing line can, in clear conscience, take an honest, courageous stand for our Federalist, Constitutional Union--and we are depending on their valor--not wounded pride--to do just that.

To Lee and the comment: "It had always seemed strange to me that states had the right to join the Union, but not the right to withdraw"..

If the states had not wanted to be a union--for practical as well as spiritual realities--they were under no obligation to sign on to God's natural law. They could have persisted--as most of the world does today--in engineering for Man's unprincipled ends, his Rule of Man. But they wisely altered course and embraced universal principles in the national union as well as federal variations on them.

But even when individuals fail to honor their marriage covenants, and in some cases show no repentance so that a divorce from that individual is in order, that does not negate the principles of the covenant or the existence of the Natural Law to which God trues. The faithful partner understands that the pact he signed remains intact with its originating spirit and his character is not altered.

States are not individuals. The southern states could have remained lords of selective principles, but they found in practice that their confederation had been founded on Man's sand. It would have been better had the slave masters relocated to Portugal, the Middle East, Spain or Africa where they might have plied their trade to this day. But it would have been unGodly to permit them the delusion of destroying the foundation of this Union, "fundamentally transforming" it for their private gain. Pretending that it could be destroyed through secession would have been a surrender to Rule of Man as if it trumped Rule of God's Natural Law.

Sometimes the truth hurts. For example in Jeremiah when God caused calmity, it hurt, I didn't want to think He would do such a thing, but I like knowing the whole truth. This essay told me some truth that I did not know and while it was painful, I am glad to know more truth.

I'm also a a fan of Mark's but two women posters here, Rose Noble and Rachael, have hit the nail on the head.

Rose Noble has it right:

"Of course the states knew that by ratifying the Constitution they were irrevocably subordinating themselves to the federal government.... to suggest that the states could secede from the Union whenever they wished is to destroy the very possiblity of democracy....If every constituency who lost an election could secede to avoid accepting the will of the majority, then Aerica wouldn't be divided into 2 nations, it might be dozens of nations by now. States could secede any time they lost, for example, the West Coast and New England could have certainly seceded in 2004 when Bush was re-elected. The precedent would even allow counties to secede from states, which ironically, Lincoln permitted West Virginia to do. Cities and rural areas would separate. Balkanization would result. Secession would make democracy impossible. The minority must learn to win elections by making better arguments and persuading enough voters, while the majority must not trample on minority rights. But secession is and never was the answer."

Rachael's points above are also right on:

"....a clear Constitutional provision allowing the government to suspend a prohibition on the writ of habeus corpus "in times of rebellion". (Article 1, section 9)."

"The idea that the South was merely exercising rights every Founding Father would have granted them, or that states could leave at any point, is made highly questionable by sections in the Constitution which expressly prohibit any state from "entering into a Confederation" entering into "any agreement with another state", and bar other actions which would allow any state or group of states to function as their own entity, such as "coin money"."

Clearly this is right. The ability of States to collude against the Union of the States they had acceded to by signing the Constitution would give them leveraging power above and beyond democratic means. States have every power to push for amendments to the Constitution and can bar such amendments in their own legislatures. The creation of the USA gave them such powers in order to vouchsafe their security and individuality against undue encroachment by the federal government.

Hundreds of years prove that Federalism and Republicanism are not mutually exclusive. That the Federal government has encroached is beyond question. I wouldn't be a subscriber to the Patriot Post if I thought otherwise.... but let's get real here re: the Civil War.

Great article about Lincoln and the Civil War.Thank you for the enlightenment.

Abu Nudnik, Rose Noble, Rachael, et al;

Evidently y'all are unfamiliar with the language of some of the State ratifications of the Constitution; otherwise you would not mis-speak so severely. There was no idea on the part of South Carolina, Virginia, New York or Rhode Island that they were "of course... irrevocably subordinating themselves" to the General Government. Said South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union". Virginia's delegates stated they, "...Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States".

Consider the language of New York: "Do declare and make known... That the Powers of Government may be re-assumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution".

Rhode Island: "We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations... do declare and make known... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness".

So, if ratifying the US Constitution permanently bound the several States beneath the yoke of the Federal Government, without recourse no matter what, is it possible the delegates doing the actual ratifying were unaware of this? I think not.

It's true the Constitution prohibited States from making treaties, etc... that's why the Southern States seceded first and confederated themselves second. The New England States were on this same track in 1815, they just didn't go all the way.

Mark Alexander’s essay, “Lincoln’s Legacy”, is now up for its annual review once again. While it does feed those hungry for this point of view, it still comes up short in terms of comprehensive scholarship. Just one example:

Mark Alexander suggests that Lincoln has a core racism that minimizes Lincolns’ legacy, writing:

The first of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was ending the abomination of slavery. There is little doubt that Lincoln abhorred slavery, but likewise little doubt that he held racist views toward blacks. His own words undermine his hallowed status as the Great Emancipator.

For example, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued: "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."

It is disingenuous to try to minimize Lincoln using this quote without acknowledging the larger debate and context around these comments. Mark Alexander is mixing his arguments for political/tactical gain just as much as Stephen Douglas did in 1858.

Lincoln did indeed say these words. But good scholarship examines the broader context from these well-documented Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Douglas was scoring political points against Lincoln by leveraging Lincoln’s well-known promotion of freedom and “equality” as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence by declaring that Lincoln was also promoting marriage between whites and blacks (and thus mulatto children), something the general culture of 1858 Illinois was simply not ready for. To the extent that these Douglas’s debate points stuck, Lincoln suffered politically. Lincoln responded strongly and clearly to these attacks in many places in the debate record, including this excerpt from the sixth of the seven debates:

"I have never said any thing to the contrary [to the idea that whites and negroes are NOT equal in all ways], but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color-perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

It may well be that these Douglas’s debate points led to his win over Lincoln in the Senate election later that year. But to Lincoln’s credit, he was consistent and strong in his underlying convictions against slavery (because it threatened the very basis of the American experiment) and more specifically regarding the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories (of course, Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery into the territories based on the idea that it is simply wrong, while Douglas argued the idea that popular sovereignty rules, i.e. whatever the territory population voted for, in spite of any silly principle like freedom). If anything, Lincoln was just way ahead of his time. To play the (modern) racism card against this historical setting is really bad form, but also very incomplete scholarship.

Piggybacking on the comments of Steve, Rose, Abu and Rachel...

I was raised on the Lincoln-as-bad-guy theology of a Southernphile. As I examined Jaffa's treatment of Lincoln, himself setting out to write his PhD dissertation as a critique of Lincoln, a few ideas converted me to the position that Lincoln, though flawed, was trying to live within the boundaries of the Constitution.

First, in emancipation, he did what he was allowed to do - to have emancipated in the slave holding, northern states (KY, MO, etc.) would have contravened Constitutional authority; however, he was not forbidden from doing so as a wartime leader of conquered territory. The CSA forfeited their rights thru secession. But more damaging to the CSA's cause were, second, the quotes from Davis/Stephens, mentioned earlier:

Davis (Pres): 'What is the reason we are compelled to asset our rights? That the labor of our African slaves should be taken away by the federal government.'

Stephens (VP): 'The immediate cuse of our present revolution is the threat to the institution of slavery. Our new government is founded upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, the slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition'.

The third and final coffin nail was the timing of secession - after the 1860 election, but BEFORE Lincoln had taken office, in anticipation of what he might do with new territories' claims on slave rights.

Now to be perfectly clear, there are some reasons where secession might be legitimate. But not for preserving the right of one man to own another- a direct violation of the principles vouchsafed by the Declaration. Every signatory to the Constitution knew that slavery trod upon this basic, natural right, and left it for later generations to deal with.

I was hoping for something more here that I had no been exposed to previously.