Q & A September 2023

I recently received the following two questions from readers. Over the years, I have answered  similar questions about whether slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but the issue keeps coming up; so I tried again this year. I did think the perspective of the reader was interesting. My response to the second question is just my historian streak still trying to combat a continuing misrepresentation about the origin of some political axioms.

(Q)  My family had an interesting and near chaotic conversation over the 4th of July. While we are all from South Carolina, some of us now live in other states. The conversation turned to the reasons Southern states, including South Carolina, seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861. Was it because SC wanted to retain slavery, or because SC wanted to exercise States Rights, or for purely economic reasons? Those in my family who stayed in South Carolina were vehement in their belief that it had nothing to do with the retention of slavery and was only about a State’s right to control its own destiny, with maybe a few economic issues thrown in. I and my group of those who left the South, just as vehemently argued it was, above all else, to perpetuate slavery. My ancestors at that time were merchants, doctors, lawyers, and clergymen and none of us believe they owned field slaves, but may have owned or rented house servants. Since several of the ancestors fought for the South, the group still living in South Carolina was offended by the tie to slavery and asserted that they would have had no reason to join in the fight to preserve slavery. According to them, our ancestors believed the North wanted to control the South so they fought against tyranny. They argued that Lincoln invaded the South and was a tyrant, thus, they had no choice by to defend their honor and their State. Some of them were angry that Slavery is even discussed and some of us are ashamed that it is part of our legacy. What do you think?

 (A) Slavery was the root cause that North and South could not resolve their differences. First, let me quote Jefferson Davis (who became the first and only president of the Confederacy) when he was still a U.S. Senator, before secession occurred. “Secession is possible unless something is not done. I again ask, what is to stop this agitation before the great and final object of which it aims, the abolition of slavery in the states, is consummated. Is it then not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession?”  (underlines are mine).  There it is, Slavery or secession, not states’ rights was his position. Jefferson certainly thought that a state had the right to secede from jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution if it felt aggrieved by the federal government; but he chose to exercise that State’s right to assure the perpetuation of slavery. Next, let me quote from South Carolina’s secession declaration: “The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws (The fugitive slave acts) to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.” This was in response to several Northern states refusing to recognize fugitive slave laws which directed an escaped slave who had been captured (or who may have surrendered to Northern authorities) be returned to the Slaveholder. The protection and perpetuation of slavery was the foremost reason why the slaveocracy and political leaders of 11 states chose to secede, and risk a devastating Civil War. Of course, that is just my opinion. On another note, I sincerely hope your family can mend fences over this matter. You can’t settle this old argument by arguing even more.

(Q): I was recently sent a document which contained a list of axioms for success for our nation that have been attributed to Abraham Lincoln. They were called “Lincoln on Limitations of Government” and they include the following: (1) You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. (2) You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. (3) You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. (4) You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. (5) You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn, (6) You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. (7) You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves. (8) You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. (9) You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. I really believe these are true and I know Lincoln was a wise man who I admire. Did he say these things and if not, do you know who did?

(A): Thank you for asking rather than just re-posting on the internet and sharing. This myth keeps coming up, however, Abraham Lincoln never said it. In fact, the quote is a compilation of comments used by William Boetcker, a minister and public speaker, in the early 20th century.  Boetcker was a proponent of industrialization as the proper way to national prosperity, and these were what he called "nuggets" in a series of lectures. When compiled into one document, they became known as "The Industrial Decalogue" or the "The American Charter." Then, someone decided (falsely) to credit the sayings to Lincoln. Ronald Reagan mistakenly, on several occasions, attributed some of these quotes to Lincoln, but he was not the first nor the last to do so; Governor Kasich made the same mistake in his campaign in 2016. Historians like me always try to correct the errors in responses, but the media lazily does not even try to help; and the uninformed on the internet just repeat the quote which perpetuates the myth. I even found a poster in a Springfield souvenir shop with these words on paper made to look old and with Lincoln's image over-laid; (I should have made a scene, I suppose).  In his political career, Lincoln did make comments on government’s role in the lives of citizens. In one instance, when he was in the Illinois legislature, he said (paraphrased) that the government’s duty was to do for the people what they could not do individually for themselves; but he was referring to building roads, bridges, and waterways. As to these axioms, I think the message is a good one, but the wrong messenger is given credit. Remember, Lincoln is also quoted as saying “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”

Old Abe was certainly wise!