When the Washington Post reviewed Martin Scorsese’s movie “The
Gangs of New York,” which included a reasonably-accurate portrayal
of the 1863 New York City draft riots (see Iver Bernstein, The
New York City Draft Riots), the Post’s reviewer expressed
astonishment upon learning that such an event had occurred. “We were
all taught in school that there was national unity during the Civil War,” he
opined.
Of course, there is never “national unity” about anything, especially war,
democratic politics being what it is. When is the last time you heard
of a unanimous vote expressing national unity in the U.S. Congress
about anything? Even the vote to declare war on Japan after Pearl
Harbor was not unanimous.
The myth of national unity during the “Civil War” was invented and cultivated
by the history profession, the Republican Party, and the
New England clergy in the post-war era to “justify” the killing of hundreds
of thousands of fellow citizens in the Southern states; the plundering of the
South during “Reconstruction;” the destruction of the voluntary union of the
states and the system of federalism that was created by the founding fathers;
and the adoption of Hamiltonian mercantilism as America’s new economic
system.
Any serious student of the “Civil War” knows that this is all absurd
nonsense. In addition to myriad draft riots, there were massive
desertions from the Union Army from the very beginning of the war (see Ella
Lonn, Desertion
During the Civil War); Lincoln did shut down hundreds of
opposition newspapers and imprison thousands of Northern political dissenters
without due process. He did deport the most outspoken Democratic
Party critic in Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio. He did
rig elections by having soldiers intimidate Democratic Party voters.
And he did send some 15,000 federal troops to murder the New York City
draft rioters by the hundreds in July of 1863. All of this has been discussed
for decades in “mainstream” history scholarship such as Constitutional
Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall and Freedom
Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague. The history profession has,
however, done a meticulous job in seeing to it that such facts rarely, if
ever, make it into the textbooks that are used in the public schools.
But times are changing in the era of the internet and of independent
scholarship on the subject by scholars associated with such organizations as
the Abbeville Institute. The Institute’s latest publication is entitled
Northern
Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War, edited by D. Jonathan White.
It includes essays by White, Brion McClanahan, Marshall DeRosa, Arthur Trask,
Joe Stromberg, Richard Valentine, Richard Gamble, John Chodes, and Allen
Mendenhall. These nine scholarly essays destroy the nationalist myth of
“national unity” in the North during the War to Prevent Southern
Independence.
Marshall DeRosa’s opening essay on “President Franklin Pierce and the War
for Southern Independence” goes a long way in explaining why the
nationalists in American politics believed that it was imperative to invent
the myth of national unity. President Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire
was a Democrat who opposed the invasion of the Southern states.
He was a Jeffersonian, states-rights president, which is why he was
mercilessly smeared by Lincoln’s hatchet man, William Seward, who accused him
of treason (re-defined by the Lincoln administration as any criticism of it
and its policies). The real objects of Seward and Lincoln’s wrath
towards Pierce, DeRosa explains, were the ideas that President Pierce stood
for and was elected president on, as illustrated in the Democratic Party
Platform of 1852.
The main ideas of this platform, upon which Pierce ran for president were:
a federal government of limited powers, delegated to it by the states;
opposition to the form of corporate welfare known as “internal improvements”;
free trade and open immigration; gradual extinction of the national debt;
opposition to a national bank; and realizing that the Constitution would have
to be amended as a means of peacefully ending slavery. This
latter position was the position of the famous nineteenth-century libertarian
abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, author of The
Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
It was because of these ideas that Pierce was libeled and smeared by the
Republican Party of his day, with subsequent generations of historians merely
repeating the smears disguised as “scholarship.” Lincoln’s claim to
fame, on the other hand, writes DeRosa, “is not that he adhered to the rule
of law [as Pierce did], but that he had the audacity to disregard it.”
Thanks to the history profession, moreover, “Americans continue to pay homage
to the villains that laid the tracks to our present sorry state of affairs.”
D. Jonathan White surveys the Northern opponents of Lincoln’s war that
were slandered by the administration and its media
mouthpieces as “copperheads” (snakes in the grass). Among the
“copperheads” were many prominent citizens of the North who, like President
Pierce, were passionate defenders of the rule of law and
constitutionally-limited government. Their main complaints were against
Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus and the mass arrest of
Northern political opponents without due process; the draft law, which they
considered to be a form of slavery; the income tax imposed by the Lincoln
administration – the first in American history; and protectionist tariffs
(the cornerstone of the Republican Party platform of 1860). Because of
these beliefs, hundreds, if not thousands of “copperheads” were imprisoned
without due process by the Lincoln administration.
Allen Mendenhall contributes a very interesting article about how the
famous U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was wounded
three times in the war, became a sharp critic of Lincoln, his “mystical”
union, and the war during the rest of his life. Brion McClanahan’s
essay describes in scholarly detail the Jeffersonian Democrats in the state of
Delaware who opposed the war (the state gave its three electoral votes and 46
percent of the popular vote to Southern Democrat John Breckenridge in the
1860 election). R.T. Valentine does essentially the same thing in his
chapter on opposition to Lincoln’s policies in Westchester County, New York
and
the greater Hudson Valley. He describes in detail how the residents of
these areas, many of whom had family history in the area going back to the
time of the founding, deeply resented the pushy, imperialistic, arrogant
“Yankees” who were the base of Lincoln’s support and who had been moving into
New York state from New England in droves.
Arthur Trask demonstrates that there was also a great deal of opposition
to Lincoln’s war in Philadelphia, where many residents had long-lasting
business and personal relationships with Southerners, while John Chodes
writes of the horrible wartime governor of Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, who
apparently fancied himself as a mini-Lincoln with his imprisonment of
dissenters and other dictatorial acts.
Joe Stromberg and Richard Gamble contribute chapters that explain the role
of the Northern clergy in instigating the war. Stromberg writes of the
impulse of many Northern clergymen to use the coercive powers of the state to
try to create some version of heaven on earth. Worse yet, “[T]he
war of 1861-1865, as preached by the clergy surveyed here, became a permanent
template for subsequent
American crusades, whatever their origins. From the Free Soil argument
of the 1850s, through two World Wars, Cold War, and down to Iraq and
beyond. American leaders insist that their latest enemy [ISIS?] is both
inherently expansionist and committed to some form of slavery. It is
therefore the duty of the new enemy to surrender ‘unconditionally’ and
undergo reconstruction and reeducation for the good of all mankind . . .”
Richard Gamble traces the transformation of “Old School Presbyterianism”
to where it embraced “political preaching.” For example, upon Lincoln’s
election a national assembly meeting in Philadelphia issued a proclamation
that was “a turning point in the history of American Presbyterianism”:
“That in the judgment of this Assembly, it is the duty of the ministry and
churches under its care to do all in their power to promote and perpetuate
the integrity of the United States [government], and to strengthen, uphold,
and encourage the Federal Government.” The Old School Presbyterians,
writes Gamble, “enlisted their church on the Union side,” which is to say,
the side that would soon be invading, murdering, raping, and plundering its
way through the Southern states. This, Gamble argues, is how war and
imperialism became the keystone of America’s “civil religion.” This
bogus “religion” is illustrated a thousand times over in the Laurence Vance
archives on LewRockwell.com.
The Abbeville Institute is to be congratulated for publishing this latest
correction of the historical record regarding Lincoln’s war. Northern
Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War should be a part of the library of
every American who resents having been lied to by his teachers, professors,
film makers, and authors, and who seeks the truth about his own country’s
history.
The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo
