Those of you who began reading my commentary before I had my own blog or who have been reading Mac-a-ro-nies from its inception already know I honed my blog teeth on the neo-Confederate movement. Readers who came along later have probably noticed I mention that pathetic band of Neandertals from time to time. It appears I need to return to writing about it often. A blogger sympathetic to the neo-Confederate movement has been promoting claims that President Abraham Lincoln was a despot and that the Emancipation Proclamation was meaningless.
Thanks for nothin' Abe
On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued his so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" supposedly freeing the slaves.
Lincoln personally disliked blacks and had publicly stated that he would willingly accept the institution of slavery if it would stop the southern states from seceding. Slavery was not a main issue to the southern states, however, and they left anyway.
Re-subjugating the Confederacy to northern domination was turning out to be much bloodier and more costly than Lincoln had expected. He needed more and better reasons for northern families to give up the lives of their sons, preferably something of a moral nature. Therefore, halfway into the war he declared that it was about ending slavery. Yeah, that's the ticket!
His real view of the moral imperative of ending slavery, however, was better reflected in the clever lawyerly construction of this worthless Emancipation Proclamation, which did NOT apply to slaves held in Union states. In short, by design this Emancipation Proclamation freed ZERO slaves.
Unfortunately, due to lack of information, I gather, quite a few bloggers and readers believe the false assertions Al Barger is making. I will take on the responsibility of providing that information.
I last wrote about the neo-Confederate movement at length in regard to its effort to prevent a statue of Lincoln being erected in Richmond, Va. It was my pleasure to act as a conduit between Robert Kline, the man whose idea the statue was and the media, since I totally sympathized with him. (Besides, he needed the protection the attention brought. Neo-Confederate goons had come to his office and threatened him, an elderly man who would not be able to defend himself.) Atrios, Roger Ailes and Zizka helped me in in that worthwhile effort.
Among the mechanisms the neo-Confederates used in that failed battle was a made-up claim the U.S. Historical Society was guilty of fraud, which it had the Virginia attorney general investigate, web pages defaming the society and fellow traveler legislators in the state legislature and Congress who tried to prevent the monument being built. The neo-Confederates fight dirty and should be given no quarter.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
MD, I believe this is exactly the right approach if you object to something: tackle it head on, publicly, and use your skills to persuade others to your point of view. Thanks.
2 - Natalie Davis
Still must say that I am no fan of Lincoln, but good job, and thanks for doing this, MD. Glad you decided to stay, at least for now.
3 - Clio
Natalie,
I'd love to know who you DO hold in esteem, as Lincoln falls so far short in your regard?
Did you singlehandedly hold the nation together in its darkest hour? I thought not.
Did you change the course of human history for the better, sacrificing your own life in the process? I thought not.
Shut your gob, then. You are not worthy.
4 - Natalie Davis
She asks me a question and then commands me to shut my piehole. LOL... :D
With all due respect, following your criterion, you should keep silent as well. But that would negate the purpose of this site.
In answer to your query, I reserve my esteem for my parents, my grandfather, my spouse and children, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and God. On the melanin front, it would be those involved in the abolitionist movement; Dr. King and those who worked with him, such as the Rev. Robert Graetz and his wife and their neighbor Rosa Parks; and El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (though NOT Malcolm X).
5 - Dew
really? why not Malcolm? Just Curious
6 - The Theory
i suspect it would be because Malcolm X was open to violence in his expressions.
7 - Natalie Davis
Precisely, and because El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz was someone who cast off hideous beliefs (that "blue-eyed devil" BS) to embrace everyone.
8 - Kelli
I've never heard the phrase "on the melanin front" before. What does it mean? My favorite darkies?
Does it not occur to you that your list of noble persons outside your immediate family (as you are, obviously the center of the universe) would have been picking cotton had Lincoln the not so hot fought the "unnecessary" Civil War?
Gandhi, by the way, was a great admirer of Lincoln. Both died at the hands of fanatical separatists who reviled them for trying to keep their respective countries together. Minor details, I suppose, to you.
9 - Natalie Davis
Couple of facts:
"On the melanin front" means those dedicated to ending the oppression based on skin color.
I doubt that anyone would label Bob or Jeannie Graetz "darkies."
Many members of my immediate family would not be labeled as "darkies."
Abolitionists came in a variety of hues, and many of them never picked cotton a day in their lives.
Gandhi was not perfect by any means (former lawyer and supporter of the caste system), and neither am I.
As for me being the center of the universe, no, that would be Jesus.
And, with all due respect, I doubt that you know what the future would have held had the Civil War not taken place. I am a pacifist who believes that there are always preferable alternatives to bloodshed.
10 - Al Barger
MD, a couple of things jumped out at me in this. First, the Emancipation Proclamation changed the nature of the war. So it wasn't really about slavery to start with, but somewhere in the middle Abe needed a new excuse for the subjugation of the south. Ah,yes. That's what it was really about all along. Right.
Here's one where you're WAY out of line: Lincoln's critics hate him because they believe he ended the possibility of the kind of society they prefer -- theocratic, racist, sexist and isolationist -- prevailing in the United States.. See how the deal works? If you object to Lincoln, then you are an evil Klansman. And where did you get theocratic and sexist from in this? Looks like you just threw in the normal liberal laundry list.
No, I object to Lincoln because he did more to destroy the idea of limited government than any other individual in US history. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus, instituted military drafts and an income tax, threw opposition newspaper editors in prison for criticizing him, and all kinds of other ugly stuff.
I criticize Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation here because I don't think he deserves much credit. That does not mean that I (or Natalie) support the institution of slavery, or everything about the Confederacy.
As to your criticism of Dilorenzo, it is heavy on derisive language, but light on facts. It may be reasonable to have different interpretations of facts, or to highlight different facts that would support different conclusions than those of Dilorenzo. There is a lot of room for legitimately differing opinions about these complicated historical matters- though you don't seem to think so.
However, you only present ONE narrow claim here of an actual factual error by Dilorenzo: the claim that a footnote to a book by Gallagher doesn't check out. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, that doesn't mean a lot. A single error in the footnotes does not mean that the author is an EVIL RACIST WHO HATES BLACK PEOPLE AND WANTS TO MAKE THE COUNTRY A SEXIST THEOCRACY.
It could be a typo. Maybe it was from page 37 of another book. What are you claiming here, that Dilorenzo absolutely made up hard numbers out of the blue and fraudulently made up a citation? Seems unlikely.
Now, if you can actually document numerous similar errors, then you would have some more significant basis of criticism. That would start to look like either unprofessional sloppiness, or even dishonesty.
In the meantime, your righteous moral denunciations of Dilorenzo appear totally unwarranted.
Also, you are ridiculously overreaching with your accusations against me. I made a fairly narrow, specific criticism that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves. From that, you decided that I am a neo-Confederate slaver, or some such NONSENSE. Surely you know better.
11 - Mac Diva
I am not going to respond to Barger, because as Natalie has noticed, he takes pleasure in his foolishness. I will not pleasure him in any way.
For people who want to know more about why no one takes DiLorenzo seriously except the neo-Confederate movement he is a leader of, you can of course click on the links in the entry. They contain longer explanations of what is wrong with DiLorenzo's book written by historians. In addition you can conduct your own search of DiLorenzo. You will discover he is a top member of the neo-Confederate movement, but a joke to real historians for yourself. He wrote the book for that audience and it failed to reach beyond it.
Barger's support of the neo-Confederates is not limited to DiLorenzo. The other book he cites is also a Bible of that racist and secessionist movement. Furthermore, it is a product from small presses set up by people in the neo-Confederate movement solely to promote their propaganda.
Small presses? Conferences to attack Lincoln? Goon squads sent to harass their enemies? Pressure on politicians beholden to them? To those not familiar with the movement, all this may sound surreal, as if there is a shadow world the neo-Confederates live in. There is, complete with their own theology, education system and popular culture, including books and music. I now realize I need to write about the movement more often because new people come to Bloggersville and others forget what they've read. I intend to keep Mac-a-ro-nies general interest, but will be writing about the neo-Confederates more often after the people supporting Barger's claptrap opened my eyes. I have virtual tons of information about them I can share. One of the funnier recent episodes is about a neo-Confederate leader (who denies being one, of course) getting caught, in disguise, accepting an award at a Ku Klux Klan banquet. Stay tuned.
12 - BJ
Al, two questions.
First, this is the sentence I couldn't get past: Slavery was not a main issue to the southern states, however, and they left anyway.
Could you provide some documentation on that one? Isn't that directly contradicted by the resolutions and other events surrounding secession?
Second, w/r/t your complaint over Lincoln on the grounds of taxes, limited government, habeus, etc., - I'm slightly ashamed to say that I don't know enough about Lincoln to have much of an opinion on that. But your post was about the Emancipation Proclimation and slavery, not those issues; so it seems fair to respond re: those issues, no?
13 - BJ
MD, if I'm not mistaken, the link to Zizka's site is broken. I'd love to browse it. (I'm familiar w/ his site generally, but haven't read those archives.)
14 - Mac Diva
Fixed it, BJ. Dunno what was wrong with it, but since I used the URL twice, I just copied the one that worked in the body to the note, where the link wasn't working. I am teaching a couple folks to blog and this is what annoys them most -- that a tiny, sometimes undetectable mistake in coding can cause something not to work.
BTW, Zizka is back after resigning from blogging again. His latest URL is on my blogroll. Now, if only the General would return.
I believe that having former slaves participate in a war changes the nature of it. In fact, it seems so obvious, I don't see how anyone could fail to see it.
15 - Natalie Davis
The Civil War was less about slavery than it was about economic issues and state's rights in general, though slavery, of course, was an important factor. However, I'm a pacifist who considers violence, for any reason, immoral.
MD, I read all the data to which you linked. Impressive stuff. But it bears saying that one can not be a Lincoln fan while still being vehemently opposed to the Confederacy, the neo-Confederacy, the institution of slavery, and the rantings of DiLorenzo and while being sad that Lincoln was assassinated.
It is clear that Lincoln's acts were politically motivated. Should a politician making a political act win moral kudos? Not necessarily -- if the pol was doing what he or she knew was the moral, right thing, yes. I am not convinced that Lincoln was moved by morality or goodness.
John Adams was aware that slavery was wrong, but after warning the so-called "founding fathers" of the horrors that would be unleashed if the abominable institution was not outlawed in 1776, he and his allies capitulated in order to win approval for the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, also aware of the evil of slavery, penned the anti-slavery text that was stricken from the Declaration at the insistence of southern members of the Continental Congress. Of course, he owned slaves himself, fathered slaves himself, and did not free his own children until after his death. Whatever their reasons, they chose to do what was politic over what was right. Lincoln did something politic that was, coincidentally, the right thing to do (and the EP, a fine speech, got the free-the-slaves ball rolling, that's it). But nothing I have read persuades me that he did it because it was the moral thing. IMO, motivation and character count.
You say he grew as a person, that he gave up the idea that African-descended humans should be separated from "decent society." Good, but not good enough.
Jefferson grew too, after his meetings with Benjamin Banneker, yet his own offspring remained enslaved. I'm glad he grew, but what difference did it make?
Many people say that we should not judge those who lived in different times and under different mores and beliefs. I say that is codswallop. Look at the example of non-African abolitionists, who risked everything to do what was right. They deserve praise and honor. No, one should not condemn fallible, ignorant human beings like Lincoln and Jefferson, but neither, IMO, should they be praised. Those who choose to praise them are certainly free to do so. Those who can't, however, have every right not to. And those who can not praise Lincoln should not be tarred as neo-Confederates unless they actually support the likes of Robert E. Lee. I can not and will not speak for Al Barger, but I state categorically my antipathy for anything involving the Confederacy or that "quaint Southern institution."
16 - Mac Diva
I largely agree with what you are saying, Natalie. I felt the way you do when faced with Right Wing News "Greatest Figures in American History" poll. The hardest name for me to type was Thomas Jefferson's. I detest the man for the reasons you stated above. And, frankly, he strikes me as a wimp unwilling to reconcile what he knew to be the truth about people of color and slavery with what was politically amenable. However, I could not ignore his role in forming the country, so I gave in and put him on my list.
I don't believe Lincoln was as awful as Jefferson. Let's remember that he did not get an opportunity to fulfill some of his promises because he was assassinated by a hero of the neo-Confederate movement, John Wilkes Booth. Maybe Lincoln would have wimped out, but I don't think so.
17 - Natalie Davis
"I don't believe Lincoln was as awful as Jefferson."
Neither do I.
18 - mike
Well, Lincoln benefits from the same mystique that surrounds FDR and JFK. Like them, he died before his ideas were put to their strongest test, and so it's easy to assume everything would have turned out better had he lived.
Ever since Reconstruction, Southerners have worked hard to convince the nation that their cause was about more than just slavery. It's a crock of shit. The South has dragged this country down since its inception. I say it's time to re-enact the siege of Atlanta. Southerners obviously didn't get the point the first time around.
19 - Al Barger
I can understand having some issue with Jefferson for owning slaves. That is an undeniable black mark on his record. However, other than this private sin affecting a relative handful of people, Jefferson was a great man who helped establish a great if imperfect country.
Lincoln, on the other hand, screwed us all. He was a fascist, an evil and murderous dictator. If he ended up landing on the right side of this one (admittedly very important) issue, it was only by accident.
20 - Al Barger
RE: comment #12 BJ, if Lincoln had made an emancipation proclamation, then the southern states left, that would tend to support an idea that the Civil War was about slavery. Of course that is not what happened.
Indeed, even during the war, as late as August of 1862, in a famous letter to newspaper editor Horace Greely, Lincoln said:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
This does not sound like we were fighting the war for the principle purpose of ending slavery.
In practice, these things are extremely complicated, and there will be legitimate counter arguments. No doubt to SOME northerners, ending slavery was a sanctified calling to war.
I take it that slavery to the Civil War was somewhat analagous to freeing the Iraqi people is in 2003. It makes a noble sounding backup reason if the real reasons either don't pan out or don't sound so good in the first place.
21 - Thought Process
Is anyone adult enough to just let this die?
22 - Natalie Davis
Why? Finally, people are trading facts and opinions rather than insults.
23 - Thought Process
Point noted
24 - BJ
No doubt to SOME northerners, ending slavery was a sanctified calling to war.
Al - thanks for the response. Your original quote was about the South: Slavery was not a main issue to the southern states, however, and they left anyway.
That just doesn't conform to anything I've ever seen about the move to secession.
Slavery was not a main issue to the southern states?
25 - Al Barger
Again, it's tough to say entirely what the "main issue" was to "the southern states" in that there is no Southern State you can ask about her opinion. It's a whole bunch of different people with differing values and priorities.
Probably you could go through letters and find a couple of southern soldiers writing about how important it is to keep black folks in their place. I doubt you'd find very many such things though.
The vast majority of white southerners were NOT slave owners. Barring strong evidence to the contrary that I haven't seen, I find it difficult to believe that southern boys were going off to fight and die motivated by the desire to protect the rich folks' right to own slaves. Doesn't make any sense to me. Especially since there wasn't yet even any attempt by the north to emancipate the slaves.