Monday, February 21, 2011

History of Presidents Day and just who was the first president?

Presidents Day, a history and question. Who was the first President?Presidents Day / credit-ref http:/www.boysofspring.com
We have all grown up with the notion that General George Washington was out first president. Well yes and no... There is a history behind the title that many do not know.
But first.....let us re-discover the real meaning and intent of the holiday that we now know as "Presidents Day".
To some it is just another three day weekend, but for those who want to understand our history better, the day holds a more interesting meaning. Public Law 90-363 also known as the "Monday Holiday Law," changed the observance of Washington's Birthday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Because it occurs so soon after Lincoln's Birthday, many states such as Hawaii, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—combine the two holidays and call it Presidents' Day or Washington-Lincoln Day .
  Some regard it as a day to honor all former presidents of the United States which is somewhat incorrect and the intended reason.

First titled Washington's Birthday, a federal holiday honoring George Washington was originally implemented by an Act of Congress in 1880 for government offices in the District of Columbia and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22. On January 1, 1971, the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. This date places it between February 15 and 21, which makes the name "Washington's Birthday" a misnomer, since it never lands on Washington's actual birthday, February 22.

The first attempt to create a Presidents' Day occurred in 1951 when the "President's Day National Committee" was formed by Harold Stonebridge Fischer of Compton, California, who became its National Executive Director for the next two decades. The purpose was not to honor any particular President, but to honor the office of the Presidency. It was first thought that March 4, the original inauguration day, should be deemed Presidents' Day. However, the bill recognizing the March 4th date was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee (which had authority over national holidays). That committee felt that, because of its proximity to Lincoln's and Washington Birthdays, three holidays so close together would be unduly burdensome. During this time, however, the Governors of a majority of the individual states issued proclamations declaring March 4 to be Presidents' Day in their respective jurisdictions.

An early draft of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act would have renamed the holiday to Presidents' Day to honor the birthdays of both Washington and Lincoln, which would explain why the chosen date falls between the two, but this proposal failed in committee and the bill as voted on and signed into law on 28 June 1968, kept the name Washington's Birthday.

By the mid-1980s, with a push from advertisers, the term "Presidents' Day" began its public appearance.Although Lincoln's birthday, February 12, was never a federal holiday, approximately a dozen state governments have officially renamed their Washington's Birthday observances as "Presidents' Day", "Washington and Lincoln Day", or other such designations. However, "Presidents' Day" is not always an all-inclusive term.

It is not the same in all the states either. In Massachusetts, the state officially celebrates "Washington's Birthday" on the same day as the Federal holiday. State law also directs the governor to issue an annual "Presidents Day" proclamation on May 29 honoring the presidents with Massachusetts roots: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge, and John F. Kennedy. Alabama uniquely observes the day as "Washington and Jefferson Day", even though Thomas Jefferson's birthday is in April. In Connecticut, Missouri and Illinois, while Washington's Birthday is a federal holiday, Abraham Lincoln's birthday is still a state holiday, falling on February 12 regardless of the day of the week.  In Washington's home state of Virginia, the holiday is legally known as "George Washington Day.
Now as for who was this countries first president & nation's chief executive ?
General George Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. And yet, the United States continually had functioning governments from as early as September 5, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from as early as July 4, 1776. During that nearly fifteen year interval, Congress—first the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress—was always moderated by a duly elected president.
As the chief executive officer of the government of the United States, the president was recognized as the head of state. Washington was thus the fifteenth in a long line of distinguished presidents—and he led the seventeenth administration—he just happened to be the first under the current constitution. So who were the luminaries who preceded him?
Peyton Randolph of Virginia (1723-1775)
When delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress, they promptly elected the former King's Attorney of Virginia as the moderator and president of their convocation. He was a propitious choice. He was a legal prodigy—having studied at the Inner Temple in London, served as his native colony's Attorney General, and tutored many of the most able men of the South at William and Mary College—including the young Patrick Henry. His home in Williamsburg was the gathering place for Virginia's legal and political gentry—and it remains a popular attraction in the restored colonial capital. He had served as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and had been a commander under William Byrd in the colonial militia. He was a scholar of some renown—having begun a self-guided reading of the classics when he was thirteen. Despite suffering poor health served the Continental Congress as president twice, in 1774 from September 5 to October 21, and then again for a few days in 1775 from May 10 to May 23. He never lived to see independence, yet was numbered among the nation's most revered founders.
Henry Middleton (1717-1784)
America's second elected president was one of the wealthiest planters in the South, the patriarch of the most powerful families anywhere in the nation. His public spirit was evident from an early age. He was a member of his state's Common House from 1744-1747. During the last two years he served as the Speaker. During 1755 he was the King's Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He was a member of the South Carolina Council from 1755-1770. His valor in the War with the Cherokees during 1760-1761 earned him wide recognition throughout the colonies—and demonstrated his cool leadership abilities while under pressure. He was elected as a delegate to the first session of the Continental Congress and when Peyton Randolph was forced to resign the presidency, his peers immediately turned to Middleton to complete the term. He served as the fledgling coalition's president from October 22, 1774 until Randolph was able to resume his duties briefly beginning on May 10, 1775. Afterward, he was a member of the Congressional Council of Safety and helped to establish the young nation's policy toward the encouragement and support of education. In February 1776 he resigned his political involvements in order to prepare his family and lands for what he believed was inevitable war—but he was replaced by his son Arthur who eventually became a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, served time as an English prisoner of war, and was twice elected Governor of his state.
John Hancock (1737-1793)
The third president was a patriot, rebel leader, merchant who signed his name into immortality in giant strokes on the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The boldness of his signature has made it live in American minds as a perfect expression of the strength and freedom—and defiance—of the individual in the face of British tyranny. As President of the Continental Congress during two widely spaced terms—the first from May 24 1775 to October 30 1777 and the second from November 23 1885 to June 5, 1786—Hancock was the presiding officer when the members approved the Declaration of Independence. Because of his position, it was his official duty to sign the document first—but not necessarily as dramatically as he did. Hancock figured prominently in another historic event—the battle at Lexington: British troops who fought there April 10, 1775, had known Hancock and Samuel Adams were in Lexington and had come there to capture these rebel leaders. And the two would have been captured, if they had not been warned by Paul Revere. As early as 1768, Hancock defied the British by refusing to pay customs charges on the cargo of one of his ships. One of Boston's wealthiest merchants, he was recognized by the citizens, as well as by the British, as a rebel leader—and was elected President of the first Massachusetts Provincial Congress. After he was chosen President of the Continental Congress in 1775, Hancock became known beyond the borders of Massachusetts, and, having served as colonel of the Massachusetts Governor's Guards he hoped to be named commander of the American forces—until John Adams nominated George Washington. In 1778 Hancock was commissioned Major General and took part in an unsuccessful campaign in Rhode Island. But it was as a political leader that his real distinction was earned—as the first Governor of Massachusetts, as President of Congress, and as President of the Massachusetts constitutional ratification convention. He helped win ratification in Massachusetts, gaining enough popular recognition to make him a contender for the newly created Presidency of the United States, but again he saw Washington gain the prize. Like his rival, George Washington, Hancock was a wealthy man who risked much for the cause of independence. He was the wealthiest New Englander supporting the patriotic cause, and, although he lacked the brilliance of John Adams or the capacity to inspire of Samuel Adams, he became one of the foremost leaders of the new nation—perhaps, in part, because he was willing to commit so much at such risk to the cause of freedom.
Henry Laurens (1724-1792)
The only American president ever to be held as a prisoner of war by a foreign power, Laurens was heralded after he was released as "the father of our country," by no less a personage than George Washington. He was of Huguenot extraction, his ancestors having come to America from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes made the Reformed faith illegal. Raised and educated for a life of mercantilism at his home in Charleston, he also had the opportunity to spend more than a year in continental travel. It was while in Europe that he began to write revolutionary pamphlets—gaining him renown as a patriot. He served as vice-president of South Carolina in1776. He was then elected to the Continental Congress. He succeeded John Hancock as President of the newly independent but war beleaguered United States on November 1, 1777. He served until December 9, 1778 at which time he was appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands. Unfortunately for the cause of the young nation, he was captured by an English warship during his cross-Atlantic voyage and was confined to the Tower of London until the end of the war. After the Battle of Yorktown, the American government regained his freedom in a dramatic prisoner exchange—President Laurens for Lord Cornwallis. Ever the patriot, Laurens continued to serve his nation as one of the three representatives selected to negotiate terms at the Paris Peace Conference in 1782.
John Jay (1745-1829)
America's first Secretary of State, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of its first ambassadors, and author of some of the celebrated Federalist Papers, Jay was a Founding Father who, by a quirk of fate, missed signing the Declaration of Independence—at the time of the vote for independence and the signing, he had temporarily left the Continental Congress to serve in New York's revolutionary legislature. Nevertheless, he was chosen by his peers to succeed Henry Laurens as President of the United States—serving a term from December 10, 1778 to September 27, 1779. A conservative New York lawyer who was at first against the idea of independence for the colonies, the aristocratic Jay in 1776 turned into a patriot who was willing to give the next twenty-five years of his life to help establish the new nation. During those years, he won the regard of his peers as a dedicated and accomplished statesman and a man of unwavering principle. In the Continental Congress Jay prepared addresses to the people of Canada and Great Britain. In New York he drafted the State constitution and served as Chief Justice during the war. He was President of the Continental Congress before he undertook the difficult assignment, as ambassador, of trying to gain support and funds from Spain. After helping Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and Laurens complete peace negotiations in Paris in 1783, Jay returned to become the first Secretary of State, called "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" under the Articles of Confederation. He negotiated valuable commercial treaties with Russia and Morocco, and dealt with the continuing controversy with Britain and Spain over the southern and western boundaries of the United States. He proposed that America and Britain establish a joint commission to arbitrate disputes that remained after the war—a proposal which, though not adopted, influenced the government's use of arbitration and diplomacy in settling later international problems. In this post Jay felt keenly the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and was one of the first to advocate a new governmental compact. He wrote five Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution, and he was a leader in the New York ratification convention. As first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jay made the historic decision that a State could be sued by a citizen from another State, which led to the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. On a special mission to London he concluded the "Jay Treaty," which helped avert a renewal of hostilities with Britain but won little popular favor at home—and it is probably for this treaty that this Founding Father is best remembered.
Samuel Huntington (1732-1796)
An industrious youth who mastered his studies of the law without the advantage of a school, a tutor, or a master—borrowing books and snatching opportunities to read and research between odd jobs—he was one of the greatest self-made men among the Founders. He was also one of the greatest legal minds of the age—all the more remarkable for his lack of advantage as a youth. In 1764, in recognition of his obvious abilities and initiative, he was elected to the General Assembly of Connecticut. The next year he was chosen to serve on the Executive Council. In 1774 he was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court and, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, was acknowledged to be a legal scholar of some respect. He served in Congress for five consecutive terms, during the last of which he was elected President. He served in that off ice from September 28, 1779 until ill health forced him to resign on July 9, 1781. He returned to his home in Connecticut—and as he recuperated, he accepted more Counciliar and Bench duties. He again took his seat in Congress in 1783, but left it to become Chief Justice of his state's Superior Court. He was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1785 and Governor in 1786. According to John Jay, he was "the most precisely trained Christian jurists ever to serve his country."
Thomas McKean (1734-1817)
During his astonishingly varied fifty-year career in public life he held almost every possible position—from deputy county attorney to President of the United States under the Confederation. Besides signing the Declaration of Independence, he contributed significantly to the development and establishment of constitutional government in both his home state of Delaware and the nation. At the Stamp Act Congress he proposed the voting procedure that Congress adopted: that each colony, regardless of size or population, have one vote—the practice adopted by the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, and the principle of state equality manifest in the composition of the Senate. And as county judge in 1765, he defied the British by ordering his court to work only with documents that did not bear the hated stamps. In June 1776, at the Continental Congress, McKean joined with Caesar Rodney to register Delaware's approval of the Declaration of Independence, over the negative vote of the third Delaware delegate, George Read—permitting it to be "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States." And at a special Delaware convention, he drafted the constitution for that State. McKean also helped draft—and signed—the Articles of Confederation. It was during his tenure of service as President—from July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782—when news arrived from General Washington in October 1781 that the British had surrendered following the Battle of Yorktown. As Chief Justice of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, he contributed to the establishment of the legal system in that State, and, in 1787, he strongly supported the Constitution at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, declaring it "the best the world has yet seen." At sixty-five, after over forty years of public service, McKean resigned from his post as Chief Justice. A candidate on the Democratic-Republican ticket in 1799, McKean was elected Governor of Pennsylvania. As Governor, he followed such a strict policy of appointing only fellow Republicans to office that he became the father of the spoils system in America. He served three tempestuous terms as Governor, completing one of the longest continuous careers of public service of any of the Founding Fathers.
John Hanson (1715-1783)
He was the heir of one of the greatest family traditions in the colonies and became the patriarch of a long line of American patriots—his great grandfather died at Lutzen beside the great King Gustavus Aldophus of Sweden; his grandfather was one of the founders of New Sweden along the Delaware River in Maryland; one of his nephews was the military secretary to George Washington; another was a signer of the Declaration; still another was a signer of the Constitution; yet another was Governor of Maryland during the Revolution; and still another was a member of the first Congress; two sons were killed in action with the Continental Army; a grandson served as a member of Congress under the new Constitution; and another grandson was a Maryland Senator. Thus, even if Hanson had not served as President himself, he would have greatly contributed to the life of the nation through his ancestry and progeny. As a youngster he began a self-guided reading of classics and rather quickly became an acknowledged expert in the juridicalism of Anselm and the practical philosophy of Seneca—both of which were influential in the development of the political philosophy of the great leaders of the Reformation. It was based upon these legal and theological studies that the young planter—his farm, Mulberry Grove was just across the Potomac from Mount Vernon—began to espouse the cause of the patriots. In 1775 he was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Maryland. Then in 1777, he became a member of Congress where he distinguished himself as a brilliant administrator. Thus, he was elected President in 1781. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation—and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.
Elias Boudinot (1741-1802)
He did not sign the Declaration, the Articles, or the Constitution. He did not serve in the Continental Army with distinction. He was not renowned for his legal mind or his political skills. He was instead a man who spent his entire career in foreign diplomacy. He earned the respect of his fellow patriots during the dangerous days following the traitorous action of Benedict Arnold. His deft handling of relations with Canada also earned him great praise. After being elected to the Congress from his home state of New Jersey, he served as the new nation's Secretary for Foreign Affairs—managing the influx of aid from France, Spain, and Holland. The in 1783 he was elected to the Presidency. He served in that office from November 4, 1782 until November 2, 1783. Like so many of the other early presidents, he was a classically trained scholar, of the Reformed faith, and an anti-federalist in political matters. He was the father and grandfather of frontiersmen—and one of his grandchildren and namesakes eventually became a leader of the Cherokee nation in its bid for independence from the sprawling expansion of the United States.
Thomas Mifflin (1744-1800)
By an ironic sort of providence, Thomas Mifflin served as George Washington's first aide-de-camp at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and, when the war was over, he was the man, as President of the United States, who accepted Washington's resignation of his commission. In the years between, Mifflin greatly served the cause of freedom—and, apparently, his own cause—while serving as the first Quartermaster General of the Continental Army. He obtained desperately needed supplies for the new army—and was suspected of making excessive profit himself. Although experienced in business and successful in obtaining supplies for the war, Mifflin preferred the front lines, and he distinguished himself in military actions on Long Island and near Philadelphia. Born and reared a Quaker, he was excluded from their meetings for his military activities. A controversial figure, Mifflin lost favor with Washington and was part of the Conway Cabal—a rather notorious plan to replace Washington with General Horatio Gates. And Mifflin narrowly missed court-martial action over his handling of funds by resigning his commission in 1778. In spite of these problems—and of repeated charges that he was a drunkard—Mifflin continued to be elected to positions of responsibility—as President and Governor of Pennsylvania, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the highest office in the land—where he served from November 3, 1783 to November 29, 1784. Most of Mifflin's significant contributions occurred in his earlier years—in the First and Second Continental Congresses he was firm in his stand for independence and for fighting for it, and he helped obtain both men and supplies for Washington's army in the early critical period. In 1784, as President, he signed the treaty with Great Britain which ended the war. Although a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he did not make a significant contribution—beyond signing the document. As Governor of Pennsylvania, although he was accused of negligence, he supported improvements of roads, and reformed the State penal and judicial systems. He had gradually become sympathetic to Jefferson's principles regarding State's rights, even so, he directed the Pennsylvania militia to support the Federal tax collectors in the Whiskey Rebellion. In spite of charges of corruption, the affable Mifflin remained a popular figure. A magnetic personality and an effective speaker, he managed to hold a variety of elective offices for almost thirty years of the critical Revolutionary period.
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794)
His resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," approved by the Continental Congress July 2, 1776, was the first official act of the United Colonies that set them irrevocably on the road to independence. It was not surprising that it came from Lee's pen—as early as 1768 he proposed the idea of committees of correspondence among the colonies, and in 1774 he proposed that the colonies meet in what became the Continental Congress. From the first, his eye was on independence. A wealthy Virginia planter whose ancestors had been granted extensive lands by King Charles II, Lee disdained the traditional aristocratic role and the aristocratic view. In the House of Burgesses he flatly denounced the practice of slavery. He saw independent America as "an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repose." In 1764, when news of the proposed Stamp Act reached Virginia, Lee was a member of the committee of the House of Burgesses that drew up an address to the King, an official protest against such a tax. After the tax was established, Lee organized the citizens of his county into the Westmoreland Association, a group pledged to buy no British goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. At the First Continental Congress, Lee persuaded representatives from all the colonies to adopt this non-importation idea, leading to the formation of the Continental Association, which was one of the first steps toward union of the colonies. Lee also proposed to the First Continental Congress that a militia be organized and armed—the year before the first shots were fired at Lexington; but this and other proposals of his were considered too radical—at the time. Three days after Lee introduced his resolution, in June of 1776, he was appointed by Congress to the committee responsible for drafting a declaration of independence, but he was called home when his wife fell ill, and his place was taken by his young protégé, Thomas Jefferson. Thus Lee missed the chance to draft the document—though his influence greatly shaped it and he was able to return in time to sign it. He was elected President—serving from November 30, 1784 to November 22, 1785 when he was succeeded by the second administration of John Hancock. Elected to the Constitutional Convention, Lee refused to attend, but as a member of the Congress of the Confederation, he contributed to another great document, the Northwest Ordinance, which provided for the formation of new States from the Northwest Territory. When the completed Constitution was sent to the States for ratification, Lee opposed it as anti-democratic and anti-Christian. However, as one of Virginia's first Senators, he helped assure passage of the amendments that, he felt, corrected many of the document's gravest faults—the Bill of Rights. He was the great uncle of Robert E. Lee and the scion of a great family tradition.
Nathaniel Gorham (1738-1796)
Another self-made man, Gorham was one of the many successful Boston merchants who risked all he had for the cause of freedom. He was first elected to the Massachusetts General Court in 1771. His honesty and integrity won his acclaim and was thus among the first delegates chose to serve in the Continental Congress. He remained in public service throughout the war and into the Constitutional period, though his greatest contribution was his call for a stronger central government. But even though he was an avid federalist, he did not believe that the union could—or even should—be maintained peaceably for more than a hundred years. He was convinced that eventually, in order to avoid civil or cultural war, smaller regional interests should pursue an independent course. His support of a new constitution was rooted more in pragmatism than ideology. When John Hancock was unable to complete his second term as President, Gorham was elected to succeed him—serving from June 6, 1786 to February 1, 1787. It was during this time that the Congress actually entertained the idea of asking Prince Henry—the brother of Frederick II of Prussia—and Bonnie Prince Charlie—the leader of the ill-fated Scottish Jacobite Rising and heir of the Stuart royal line—to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional monarch in America. It was a plan that had much to recommend it but eventually the advocates of republicanism held the day. During the final years of his life, Gorham was concerned with several speculative land deals which nearly cost him his entire fortune.
Arthur St. Clair (1734-1818)
Born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland during the tumultuous days of the final Jacobite Rising and the Tartan Suppression, St. Clair was the only president of the United States born and bred on foreign soil. Though most of his family and friends abandoned their devastated homeland in the years following the Battle of Culloden—after which nearly a third of the land was depopulated through emigration to America—he stayed behind to learn the ways of the hated Hanoverian English in the Royal Navy. His plan was to learn of the enemy's military might in order to fight another day. During the global conflict of the Seven Years War—generally known as the French and Indian War—he was stationed in the American theater. Afterward, he decided to settle in Pennsylvania where many of his kin had established themselves. His civic-mindedness quickly became apparent: he helped to organize both the New Jersey and the Pennsylvania militias, led the Continental Army's Canadian expedition, and was elected Congress. His long years of training in the enemy camp was finally paying off. He was elected President in 1787—and he served from February 2 of that year until January 21 of the next. Following his term of duty in the highest office in the land, he became the first Governor of the Northwest Territory and the founder of Cincinnati. Though he briefly supported the idea of creating a constitutional monarchy under the Stuart's Bonnie Prince Charlie, he was a strident Anti-Federalist—believing that the proposed federal constitution would eventually allow for the intrusion of government into virtually every sphere and aspect of life. He even predicted that under the vastly expanded centralized power of the state the taxing powers of bureaucrats and other unelected officials would eventually confiscate as much as a quarter of the income of the citizens—a notion that seemed laughable at the time but that has proven to be ominously modest in light of our current governmental leviathan. St. Clair lived to see the hated English tyrants who destroyed his homeland defeated. But he despaired that his adopted home might actually create similar tyrannies and impose them upon themselves.
Cyrus Griffin (1736-1796)
Like Peyton Randolph, he was trained in London's Inner Temple to be a lawyer—and thus was counted among his nation's legal elite. Like so many other Virginians, he was an anti-federalist, though he eventually accepted the new Constitution with the promise of the Bill of Rights as a hedge against the establishment of an American monarchy—which still had a good deal of currency. The Articles of Confederation afforded such freedoms that he had become convinced that even with the incumbent loss of liberty, some new form of government would be required. A protégé of George Washington—having worked with him on several speculative land deals in the West—he was a reluctant supporter of the Constitutional ratifying process. It was during his term in the office of the Presidency—the last before the new national compact went into effect—that ratification was formalized and finalized. He served as the nation's chief executive from January 22, 1788 until George Washington's inauguration on April 30, 1789

Thursday, February 17, 2011

An Event to Celebrate Pres. Lincoln's Birthday

An Event to Celebrate Pres. Lincoln's BirthdayPresident Abraham Lincoln / credit-ref this authors collection
Saturday, February 19, 2011
1:00 PM
Buffalo & Erie County Historical Society
25 Nottingham Terrace Buffalo, NY
We will have a table set up promoting the Round Table at CW Museum & Learning Center
Come join us as we celebrate Abraham Lincoln at the Buffalo & Erie County Historical Society
Uniform reenactors or those ini period dress are welcome to our luncheon at 12 noon
 Event kicks off promtly at 1 PM, a military saluete to Abe & wreath laying, with CW Reenactors, period music with the Irish Volunteers, a visit by Abe Lincoln
 We will have a table to promote the museum - come on out and introduce yourself....
Hopefully you will come visit our learning center or be interested in Volunteering for a few hours once or twice a month (or more)
 Look forward to seeing you there
Steve Teeft - Director ETT Museum & living historian
John Tucker - Museum volunteer & living historian

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States of America


We can get a good glimpse into the founding principles of the Confederacy by taking an in-depth look at the Confederate constitution, which was approved, and came into use by the rebel states on March 11, 1861. The document is largely a word-for-word copy of the United States constitution, but with several key changes. The changes offer the clearest window of insight into how precisely the CSA intended to be different from the USA, and why.

THE CHANGES
History can be studied through online schools. Don't forget to take a look at pictures of the Civil War too.
Before we get into a line-by-line comparison, I should point out the general, minor changes that occurred during the revision process:

All references to the "United States" were changed to the "Confederate States;" references to the "Union" were changed to "Confederacy."
The CSA's constitution's punctuation, capitalization, and in some cases spelling, are all updated from 18th Century to 19th Century English standards.
The CSA constitution numbers its clauses. In most cases, each paragraph from the US constitution is numbered as a single clause, but in some cases the CSA merges multiple clauses into one big one, or breaks up long paragraphs into several smaller ones.

Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.

States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?

As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (6-1-3), the "Commerce" clause (1-8-3) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1-8-18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."

As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Indeed, CSA constitution seems to barely stop short of making owning slaves mandatory. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of future anti-slave law or policy will be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" until the cows come home, but the fact remains that ON PAPER in the form of the Constitution, anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.

In the end, however, many of the most interesting changes introduced in the CSA constitution have nothing to do with federalism or slavery at all. The President's term limit and line-item veto, along with the various fiscal restraints, and the ability of cabinet members to answer questions on the floor of Congress are all innovative, neutral ideals whose merits may still be worth pondering today

To see a picture of and information on the consatitution;
http://www.moc.org/site/Calendar/1316055843?view=Detail&id=103621&whence=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moc.org%2Fsite%2FPageServer%3Fpagename%3Dvisit_cal

Read the Confederate Constitution here;
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Sunday, February 6, 2011

President Abraham Lincoln. Racist or moral ground?

President Abraham Lincoln 16th President of the United States / credit-ref this authors collectionPresident Lincoln as judged today but what about slavery? / credit-ref this authors collection
One in a series of my blogs on the American Civil War with the celibration of the 150th annversity.
Again, how Lincoln would be judged according to 19th century standards and not todays.

Lincoln in his day was enlightened in his approach to the race question, and certainly his views toward the slaves were not as repugnant as those of the Southern and Northern supporter's of slavery who felt the slaves were a higher from of animal versus human beings, and used, amongst other justifications, select Biblical passages that "validated" the institution of slavery.

Regardless of his motives for doing so, and ignoring the interesting historical question of did he use the abolition of slavery purely as a "pawn" in order to save the Union, he did accomplish both objectives. He freed the slaves, not by the Emancipation Proclamation, but by winning the War. By winning he also reestablished the primacy of the Union, along with it's preservation.

My problem in this is not with Lincoln, or any other 19th century figure, Northern or Southern. My issue is with individuals who will take someone and append modern appelations to them that don't fit.

Today Lincoln would not be the model for a civil rights leader because his views would be questionable to most people today.

I think pragmatism in pursuit of Lincolns primary objective of perserving the Union is what led him to his advocation of the abolition of slavery as a war aim, versus a modern day explianation of "moral" judgement on his part that slavery was intrinsically evil. I just don't believe the historical record supports a viewpoint that Lincoln held a fundamental opposition to slavery.

I hope nothing I have posted previously was interpreted by anyone as my being an apologist for slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just disagree with some individuals on if it was a the cause versus the catalyst for the War.
 Concerning Slavery, some think Lincoln and the Republican Partys' stand was unequivocal, it was wrong, it must be eliminated. I suggest that stand was not pragmatic if most of the country was racist and the majority was not particularly exercised by its presence."

The historical record, including Lincolns public and private comments and correspondence, does not support the position that Lincoln had a personal moral aversion to Slavery. Lincoln was the President from a party that was opposed to Slavery.

A source for many of my previous statements about Lincoln's personal views is "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work).

One additional quote I'll provide from Basler's work is the following concerning Lincoln's attitude toward slavery even after war was threatened, and then broke out. In his own words, Lincoln states he "struggled for nearly a year and a half" to save the institution of slavery. Hardly the words of a ardent moral opponent of the institution.

Allen T. Rice in the work "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of his Time" New York, 1888 is the source for the following quote about Lincoln.

For those who think Lincoln was a great moral crusader fighting because of an inherent belief in the immorality of slavery, I invite them to produce one verified statement where Lincoln states such a belief. Many historians have spent their entire career's seaching for such a statement, but one has yet to surface that I am aware of.

The the Emancipation Proclamation and the impact it had upon European recognition of the Confederacy. The European Powers, especially England were not motivated by a burning desire to clothe themselves in the ideals of the Confederacy when consideration of recognition was being proposed. They instead were also acting out of pragmatism.

Number one, they thought there was a very good chance the South would win the war.

Number two, any breakup of the USA would rebound to their benefit. Two weaker nations in North America was better for their Empires than was one strong one.

Number three, if the South did win, and they had rebuffed efforts and appeals for recognition and aid, their relations with the newly independent South would have started off on less than favorable conditions.

Number four, the only war aim, prior to Antietem and the Emancipation Proclamation that was a direct result of that victory, was preservation of the Union. While the European powers were happy with the status quo from a trade perspective, again they weren't willing to ignore a possible victor in the war, thus the consideration of the recognition of the South.

Number five, diplomatic blunders by the North, for example, the infamous "Trent Affair" had ruffled many feathers in London and other European capitol's. In fact, it can be argued that had Prince Albert of Britian not violated HIS constitutional authority under the British Constitution, and intervened with Palmerston, a British Fleet may have been readied for deployment off the Union's East Coast.

Antietam put paid to the proposition of a quick decisive Confederate victory. The Emancipation Proclamation then was issued and the war aims of the Union changed, again IMHO for pragmatic versus moral reason's as i've elaborated on in previous postings. This new identification by the North of WHY they were fighting the war, coupled with anti-slavery sentiment in the European
homelands, which WAS in the majority and motivated by moral grounds, when added to the new opinion that the South couldn't now win, gave the European powers the "out" they needed to effectively "pull the plug" on any chance of recognition of the Confederacy.

I admit I wish a credible argument could be made that a great moral indignation again the institution of slavery had existed in a majority postion prior to the Civil War in the North. Such a postion might have made the South pause, re-evaluate their position, and find a way to stay in the Union. But it didn't exist. Northern politicians and much popular opinion supported Slavery and the arguments for it. More politicians and public support, North and South, were not willing to risk war for the sake of Slavery, and it took the fluke of a major political split which allowed a tiny regional party to win the presidency with 39% of the popular vote to set in motion the final elimination of slavery.

Somehow in all the historical evidence I fail to find the great moral movement on the majority of American's for the elimination of slavery based on moral motives. I do see a series of circumstances which evolved that, based on pragmatism, did coalesce and resulted in the elimination of that odious institution. But, because the ultimate outcome was a great moral good, one should not make the mistake of ascribing moral motives to leaders (Lincoln) and movements (Northern public opinion) which other motives were bigger player's in bringing about the ultimate results.

Quoting BB Mumford From the Richmond, Va., Times, October 22, 1899

On the 22d of September, 1862, after the war had been in progress for a year and a half, Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation, in which he declared that the slaves held in the States, or portions of States which should be still in rebellion on the 1st of January, 1863, following, would be, by a subsequent proclamation, emancipated. His justification was found in the fact that, as a war measure, it would deplete the strength of the Confederacy and augment the forces of the Union.

In all other portions of the Union where slavery was legalized, to-wit: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and portions of Louisiana and Virginia, the institution would remain unaffected by the proclamation. More than that, by the very terms of the proclamation, the people of the States in which it was made to apply could escape its effects by laying down their arms. Surely if the preservation of the institution of slavery in the seceding States furnished the incentive for their conduct, these States had simply to ground their arms and the institution would have remained.

On the 1st of January, 1863, the final proclamation was made, in which it was recited, because of the failure of the people of the States and portions of States above mentioned to lay down their arms, the slaves within those designated localities were declared free, and the President pledged all the powers of the Union to make good this declaration. It may be of interest to note that, among the counties of Virginia excepted from the operation of this proclamation, were Accomac and Northampton--in honor of the Confederate soldiers from which this monument is dedicated to-day.

Thus, and thus only, did the emancipation of the slaves become involved in the war. Mr. Lincoln only justified his proclamation as a war measure to help the cause of the Union, for he said: "If he could save the Union by freeing the slaves, he would do it; if he could save it by freeing one-half and keeping the other half in slavery, he would take that plan; if keeping them all in slavery would effect the object, that would be his course."


The North was not monolithic on the subject of abolition of slavery, and indeed, during the war I will still argue that the majority of the North were NEVER "abolitionist" in nature. Rather, they were willing to accept and promote abolition as the price to pay for victory. Only afterwards did some reluctant "supporter's" discover and decide to play the "morality" card.

Also, the decision to embank on the "moral crusade" by Lincoln of the abolition of slavery was again, a pragmatic solution to a major problem he faced, i.e., the very real possibility that foreign recognition was going to force the Union, at best, to agree to mediation by the European Powers ala the Congress of Vienna. At worst, the North was going to be faced with open endorsement of the South by the major European powers, coupled with active military intervention.

Failure by the North to agree to such mediation quite possibly would have meant 1) the breaking of the Union blockade of the South by the British Fleet,
2) the open, versus covert, financing and supplying of the munitions of war by France and England, and
3) possibly a European refusal to engage in commerce with the North until she agreed a peace settlement with the South.
The emancipation proclamation, and the cosmetic changing of the chief War aims of the North to the abolition of slavery versus preservation of the Union proved a master stroke by a master politician. Lincoln reframed the argument of recognition of the South to where recognition was explicitly coupled with advocation of slavery.

I'm not convinced that ultimately Lincoln would not have gotten rid of the idea of abolition of slavery if the South had agreed to reenter the Union. There is too much historical evidence arguing that Lincoln repeatedly considered just such an option. However, the embracing of abolition by Lincoln was a great move at a time when the North was on the proverbial ropes.

Was a greater good achieved because of slavery's abolition. No question, of course it was. But, again, one must be intellectually honest and to me, it was pragmatism versus morality that brought about the result.

Support for my analysis that Lincoln was very reluctant in his support for the 13th amendment comes from David H Donald's 1995 biography of Lincoln, "Herndon's Informants" edited by Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis, Urbana 1998, "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work), and Allen T. Rice in the work "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of his Time" New York, 1888 amongst others.

Rather than being a driving force for the 13th amendment, Lincoln opposed it up until the nominating convention in 1864. It was legislator's like Charles Sumner, Lyman Trumball and James Ashley who were the driving force behind the 13th amendment. Lincoln primarily watched from the sidelines and did nothing to support it.

During his 1864 campaign for renomination by the Republican Party, Lincoln faced considerable opposition within his own party. As an example, I quote from "Reasons against the re-nomination of Abraham Lincoln, adopted February 15, 1864 by a Republican Meeting at Davenport Iowa (pamphlet found in the Huntington Library). The pamphlet states Lincoln was a contra-emancipator who had done more to hinder emancipation than to advance it. They referred to Lincoln as a "brakeman" who "clogged and impeded the wheels and movements of the revolution". These Republicans further stated that the Black's liberty was "about to be born to light, but Lincoln has not the merit of having promoted the birth".

It was only after the National Union Convention that Lincoln climbed aboard the bandwagon of public opinion and came out in support of the 13th amendment. In this, Lincoln exhibited a tendency he often showed, i.e., don't do anything until forced by public opinion to act. or lose out.

David H. Donald has noted in his biography, a pleasant fiction exists that Lincoln then became a flaming advocate of the amendment (13th) and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure it's passage. As Donald explicitly states in his biography, there is no evidence to support that fiction. Donald does note that it was only at the last moment that Lincoln acted to move the legislative process forward.

Wendall Phillips, of the abolitionist movement, said in the Feb 10, 1865 "Liberator" stated Lincolns support for the 13th amendment and other similar initiatives were forced. He further stated that Lincoln had not made a single step toward Black liberation on his own. This is only one of many quotes from abolitionists who during Lincoln's lifetime criticized him for his lack of support of Black interests.

Kenneth M Stampp who stated of Lincoln "Indeed, it may be said that if it was Lincoln's destiny to go down in History as the Great Emancipator, rarely has a man embraced his destiny with greater reluctance than he" (quoted from the "Era of Reconstruction", New York, 1965).

To cloak Lincoln in the mantle of being a driving force for Black equality, motivated primarily by a moral opposition to a segment of mankind being held in bondage, if they wish. However, such analysis is incorrect. Lincoln was a great man and unquestionably, one of our greatest presidents. But he also had fundamental flaws.

Many people like to quote Lincoln as having said that the Declaration of Independence "comtemplated the progressive improvement of all men everywhere" and cite this as an example of Lincoln's moral belief's advocating the equality of the slaves. However, consulting "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work) shows that while the speech was given in Springfield on June 26, 1857, and that Lincoln did indeed utter these words, the following is not quoted from the same speech. Lincoln, on the same page stated that he and Stephen A. Douglas were "horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races". If my notes are correct (and it has been many years since I copied them), this particular speech can be found in "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work) in volume 2, page 407. As this example shows, when the full context of the speech is read, the statement about the Declaration of Independence takes on a different meaning.

Lincoln was not a political abolitionist. As a lawyer/politician Lincoln was sensitive to rights established by law, and to the consensus established in those laws. Lincoln is not an abolitionist President, or a free soil President, or a high tariff President. He is by his own estimation President of the United States. Strategically he appears to make an effort to think across mere party lines, or advocacy lines and attempts to act in the larger interests of a consensus.

The 4 Apr 64 public letter to AG Hodges is interesting as Lincoln is speaking to Kentuckians on his perspective of the fate of slavery, and preparing them for the inevitable end of the institution. It is also a defense of his methodology.

It's why I constantly remind people that Lincoln needed the 2d Confiscation Act before he committed to the Emancipation Proclamation. When the legal instrument presented itself he immediately used it.

I was perhaps unclear in stating Lincolns application of the 13th Ammendment. It would be inappropriate to say that Lincoln drove the Bill in Congress, but once the Bill was on the floor and Lincoln was renominated to run for a second term, Lincoln placed the Bill on the top burner as a political necessity to prevent subversion of "war acts" which freed slaves.

This process is convoluted. That makes Lincoln subject to every form of criticism from both benches. Lincoln never loses perspective on the fact that he is still a minority President and what he attempts to do must gain support from without if it is not to be percieved as an arbitrary imposition by fiat or party politics.
 Ralph Waldo Emerson who is quoted in "Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson" edited by E.W. Emerson and W.E. Forbes, Boston, 1913, as saying that Lincoln "thinks Emancipation almost morally wrong and resorts to it only as a desperate measure".

Some contemporaries of Lincoln are on record supporting the view that Lincoln despised abolitionists. Examples include, Colonel Donn Piatt, a former confidate of Lincoln who campaigned mightily for him in his first presidential election, who stated publicly that Lincoln "laughed at the Abolitionists as a disturbing element easily controlled" ("Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of his Time", Allen T. Rice, New York, 1888 .

Republican congressman Eli Thayer is quoted as saying Lincoln spoke of abolitionists "in terms of contempt and derision" ("An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln: John G. Nicolay's Interviews and Essays", Michael Burlington ed., Carbondale, 1996).

Jessie Benton Fremont, daughter of Senator Thomas Hart Benton and wife of General John C Fremont called Lincoln "the Pontius Pilate of the slaves" ("The letters of Jessie Benton Fremont", edited by Pamela Herr and Mary Lee Spence, Urbana, 1993).

My opinion as stated previously, Lincoln had been no supporter of abolitionists in general, and Emancipation in particular for the majority of his political career. He had specifically voted in Congress against measures designed to advance the condition of the slaves, had supported the South consistently in votes and public utterances on items such as the fugitive slave laws, when Emancipation became a potent political item Lincoln failed to support immediate Emancipation on every occasion and further advocated that after Emancipation deportation, by force if necessary, from the physical borders of the United States should occur.

Moving on to the Emancipation Proclamation,......Lincoln only freed the slaves in the States currently in rebellion,......he specifically excluded those living within States loyal to the Union........It can be argued that under US law Lincoln didn't have ANY authority to emancipate slaves living in States which continued to accept the Constitution as "the law of the land". Again, it is a fine legal point, but the only territory which Lincoln could "free" the slaves was those States which had passed Articles of Secession, the effect of which was repudiation of the US Constitution."

Some evidence exists which suggests that Lincoln, by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was attempting to achieve a plan of gradual emancipation, coupled with compensation to slaveowners, and then when "freedom" was obtained, the deportation, by force if necessary, of the emancipated slaves from the territory of the United States.

Support for this analysis is provided by, amongst others, Judge David Davis a Lincoln "crony", Lincoln intimate Henry Clay Whitney, and the statements and actions of Lincoln himself.

Judge David Davis is quoted as saying in 1862, some two months after Lincoln signed the Preliminary Proclamation (signed on Sept. 22, 1862), that Lincolns "whole soul...is absorbed in his (Lincoln's) plan of remunerative emancipation, and he thinks that if Congress don't fail him, that the problem is solved" (David B. Davis to Leonard Swett, Davis Papers, Nov.26th, 1862, Illinois State Historical Library).

Henry Clay Whitney said of the Proclamation that it was " not the end designed by him (Lincoln), but only the means to the end, the end being the deportation of slaves and the payment for them to their masters....at least those who were loyal" ("Life on the Circuit with Lincoln", Henry C Whitney, Boston, 1892).

Whitney on a different date further states that Lincoln "issued his Proclamation with a shrewder purpose than the public was aware of:.....for as a lawyer, he knew it was of no inherent value, if unsupported". ("Life on the Circuit with Lincoln", Henry C Whitney, Boston, 1892).

Whitney then further states in yet another instance " that he knew his Proclamation would not, of itself, establish freedom in this, a constitutional government, is plain; without erudition or scientific methods, he understood the fundamental principles of constitutional law.......and he understood very well that his Proclamation was merely, ........a brutem fulmen" ("Life on the Circuit with Lincoln", Henry C Whitney, Boston, 1892).

Finally Lincoln himself in his second State of the Union Message asked Congress to approve a plan that called for, amongst other items, the deportation (Lincoln's term) of Black's and used language that called for the racial cleansing of the United States of America (although not in the genocidal sense so prevalent in the 20th and 21st centuries). ("The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work). Congress apparently took his proposals seriously because money was eventually appropriated to fund the deportation of the Blacks.

Further support of my, and other's, interpretation of Lincoln's motives on this subject are provided in his votes and statements on the proposed 13th amendment, not the one which eventually passed, but the one which was numerically proposed years earlier as the next in line after the existing 12th amendment.

As I have stated previously, my purpose of this debate is not to bash Lincoln. I acknowledge his greatness, but I have little regard for those who advance the "Myth of Lincoln" and even less for those who have chosen to "diefy" him.

A great man, certainly and unequivocally!!!! Whatever the motives and personally held beliefs, did he achieve a great moral good? Again, no contest, he did!!!!! But his motives and personal beliefs on this particular subject being based on a complete moral opposition to slavery, my personal opinion is no.

Lincoln was a man, flaws and all. As such he should be subject to the examination and criticism reserved for all other historical figures.

In the final analysis, Lincoln is more than capable of withstanding the scrutiny and standing on his own merits. My opinion...He was the right man at the right time faults or no faults. Had it been someone else, this country may had been hard pressed to survive as one nation.
 My total statement regards "myth".
"As I have stated previously, my purpose of this debate is not to bash Lincoln. I acknowledge his greatness, but I have little regard for those who advance the "Myth of Lincoln" and even less for those who have chosen to "diefy" him.

A great man, certainly and unequivocally!!!! Whatever the motives and personally held beliefs, did he achieve a great moral good? Again, no contest, he did!!!!! But his motives and personal beliefs on this particular subject being based on a complete moral opposition to slavery, my personal opinion is no.

Lincoln was a man, flaws and all. As such he should be subject to the examination and criticism reserved for all other historical figures.

In the final analysis, Lincoln is more than capable of withstanding the scrutiny and standing on his own merits. My opinion...He was the right man at the right time faults or no faults. Had it been someone else, this country may had been hard pressed to survive as one nation."
 Lincolns primary goal was the saving of the union not he ending slavery even though he was adverst to slavery and hated the institution.

Executive Mansion
Washington, August 22, 1862.


Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inference which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of the oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

 In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies.

President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.

Still, many African Americans wanted to join the fighting and continued to put pressure on federal authorities. Even if Lincoln was not ready to admit it, blacks knew that this was a war against slavery. Some, however, rejected the idea of fighting to preserve a Union that had rejected them and which did not give them the rights of citizens.

The federal government had a harder time deciding what to do about escaping slaves. Because there was no consistent federal policy regarding fugitives, individual commanders made their own decisions. Some put them to work for the Union forces; others wanted to return them to their owners. Finally, on August 6, 1861, fugitive slaves were declared to be "contraband of war" if their labor had been used to aid the Confederacy in any way. And if found to be contraband, they were declared free.

Though "contraband" slaves had been declared free, Lincoln continued to insist that this was a war to save the Union, not to free slaves. But by 1862, Lincoln was considering emancipation as a necessary step toward winning the war. The South was using enslaved people to aid the war effort. Black men and women were forced to build fortifications, work as blacksmiths, nurses, boatmen, and laundresses, and to work in factories, hospitals, and armories. In the meantime, the North was refusing to accept the services of black volunteers and freed slaves, the very people who most wanted to defeat the slaveholders. In addition, several governments in Europe were considering recognizing the Confederacy and intervening against the Union. If Lincoln declared this a war to free the slaves, European public opinion would overwhelmingly back the North.

Some people were critical of the proclamation for only freeing some of the slaves. Others, including Frederick Douglass, were jubilant. Douglass felt that it was the beginning of the end of slavery, and that it would act as a "moral bombshell" to the Confederacy. Yet he and others feared that Lincoln would give in to pressure from northern conservatives, and would fail to keep his promise. But the purpose of the Civil War had now changed. The North was not only fighting to preserve the Union, it was fighting to end slavery.

Black soldiers faced discrimination as well as segregation. The army was extremely reluctant to commission black officers -- only one hundred gained commissions during the war. African American soldiers were also given substandard supplies and rations. Probably the worst form of discrimination was the pay differential. At the beginning of black enlistment, it was assumed that blacks would be kept out of direct combat, and the men were paid as laborers rather than as soldiers. Black soldiers therefore received $7 per month, plus a $3 clothing allowance, while white soldiers received $13 per month, plus $3.50 for clothes.

Black troops strongly resisted this treatment. The Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts Regiment served a year without pay rather than accept the unfair wages. Many blacks refused to enlist because of the discriminatory pay. Finally, in 1864, the War Department sanctioned equal wages for black soldiers.

In the South, most slaveholders were convinced that their slaves would remain loyal to them. Some did, but the vast majority crossed Union lines as soon as Northern troops entered their vicinity. Numbers of white southerners also refused to support the Confederacy. From the beginning, there were factions who vehemently disagreed with secession and remained loyal to the Union. Many poor southern whites became disillusioned during the course of the war.

There were also northerners who resisted the war effort. Some were pacifists. Others were white men who resented the fact that the army was drafting them at the same time it excluded blacks. And there were whites who refused to fight once black soldiers were admitted. The North was also hit by economic depression, and enraged white people rioted against African Americans, who they accused of stealing their jobs.

Finally, on April 18, 1865, the Civil War ended with the surrender of the Confederate army. 617,000 Americans had died in the war, approximately the same number as in all of America's other wars combined. Thousands had been injured. The southern landscape was devastated.

A new chapter in American history opened as the Thirteenth Amendment, passed in January of 1865, was implemented. It abolished slavery in the United States, and now, with the end of the war, four million African Americans were free.

This platform refers to Teritorys and not free or slave states.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/SCARTOONS/car1860.html

comes the following;

The national platform of the Republican party called not for the destruction of slavery, but only for its restriction to the Southern states. The party had toned down the language in its platform from that of 1856, which had referred to the "twin relics of barbarism-- Polygamy, and Slavery." Lincoln himself took relatively conservative positions on key racial issues, supporting enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, and opposing both the abolition of interstate slave trading and emancipation in the District of Columbia.

http://elections.harpweek.com/1860/Overview-1860-2.htm

The Republican platform opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories without condemning it in the South, criticized the judicial activism of the Dred Scott decision, denounced John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry, endorsed a federal homestead law and a transcontinental railroad, and opposed stricter naturalization laws.

http://www.vernonjohns.org/vernjohns/sthcvlwr.html

Romantics love to say that the nation fought the war primarily to destroy the moral evil of slavery. This overstress on morality as the main factor is not acceptable. The nation was able to live with slavery from 1619 to 1863, and slavery was the same moral evil in 1619 as it was in 1863. Actually, the strong moral onslaught against slavery began only after the Compromise of 1850. Only after differing self-interests of the two regions widened on slavery did the North turn solidly to the moral argument. The South responded with arguments that morally justified slavery. This turn to moral positions meant the conflict had already hardened past the point of no return.
Cartoon of the time showing Lincoln a racist / credit-ref this authors collection
Political cartoon of the time / credit-ref this authors collection
President Lincoln / credit-ref this authors collection