Tag: Investigations

Terrible. Both Christians and atheists have this fascination of claiming Hitler was on the other team. And they do this by taking things out of context, and then by ignoring everything that disagrees with their view.

Let’s break this down. Hitler wasn’t a Christian. He was definitely anti-Christian. He was more of a pagan. He actively persecuted Christians as well as the Catholic Church. He detested Christianity.

But he wasn’t an atheist either. He was a theist, but he took on a pagan stance.

While he was rising in power, and even in the Mein Kampf, he did claim to be a Christian. But as the Nazis took power, they started promoting what was called positive Christianity, which really stripped Christianity of it’s foundations. Positive Christianity denied that Jesus was divine, rejected the Jewish elements of the religion, including the Old Testament, and even pitted Jesus as an Aryan fighter who fought against Jews.

Hitler did agree to a Reich concordant with the Vatican, but it was more of  a show than anything else, as it generally ignored it and persecuted the Catholic Church anyway.

Hitler also didn’t like atheists though. He found them to be uneducated. But really, Hitler was infatuated with occultism, and had a belief in some sort of god that often was conflated with nature. So he was religious in some sense.

As for the last statement, many Christians hated the Jews, yet still worshiped Jesus. It wasn’t totally unthinkable for millions of Christians.

This meme comes up quite a bit. This is one of my least favorite types of memes, as it really is an appeal to authority, and more often than not, the quotation is inaccurate. This quote is most likely inaccurate, as in Seneca never said it. Looking through Seneca’s works, it just isn’t there.

The difficult thing with trying to nail this quote down though is that it has been repeated thousands of times, and doing a quick search brings up hundreds of “quote” websites that never cite where the quote came from. However, uncovering the source isn’t impossible.

The first mention of this quote, that I can find comes around 1903, at earliest. It can be found in the book “Little Journeys: To the home of great philosophers” by Elbert Hubbard. There is no citation there. The quotation is also a bit different as wise is changed to philosopher, and the tense is past, instead of present.

That isn’t where the quote most likely began though. Instead, it most likely originated with Edward Gibbon in his “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” which was fully completed in 1789. The relevant section states: 

“The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.”

Basically, Gibbon was writing about the views of the Romans, and later on someone simplified it and placed it on the lips of Seneca in order to give it more authority. It also have to be noted that Gibbons was quite hostile to religion, and his biases often cloud the history he was purporting to record.

The quote from Gibbons is part of his wider narrative that saw paganism as tolerant, and Christianity as intolerant. He would largely blame Christianity for the decline of Rome. We can see this idea in this particular quote. He’s not talking about religion but modes of worship, and he’s largely talking about paganism here as that is what really prevailed in the Roman world. He then tries to skirt the issue of how there were persecutions of Christians by saying that the Roman leaders just found these modes of worship useful, instead of acknowledging that the Roman leaders also became passionate believers as well.

So to sum up, the quote isn’t from Seneca, but instead from Gibbons. Gibbons allowed his biases to really guide his history, and the quote really is more of an attack than anything else.

While there were presidents before George Washington, they presided over a different United States, so to say. So as we know, the United States declared independence in 1776. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783, and George Washington was elected in 1789. So we can see why during the most early years, right after the declaration of independence, there was no need to have a formalized president. We were in the middle of the war, and we had adequate military leadership. But as the war was nearing an end, there was a push for a more central leader.

And here John Hanson steps onto the stage. The year was 1781, and two things occurred. First, the adoption of the Articles of Confederation were passed. It was the first constitution of the United States, but it only provided a very weak central government. In 1787, there was a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. There the delegates were authorized to amend the articles, but in secret closed door meetings, a new Constitution was drawn up. It was that Constitution that gave the central government more power. It would be this second constitution that George Washington would be elected under.

The second important thing in 1781 though was the election of John Hanson as President of the Continental Congress, or as it was also called, President of the United States in Congress assembled. Now, the Articles of Confederation did not have an executive branch. And the President was more of a ceremonial title. But he was required to do a few things such as be a neutral moderator for discussions, sign documents and respond to correspondence.

Hanson would only served a 1 year term; however, that is because that was that the Articles stipulated. Now, part of the problem with his presidency though was that the Articles didn’t really define the office. This is what it has to say about the position: “The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority … to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years.”

However, in a book by Edward Cody Burnett, titled the Continental Congress, he makes the argument that others had previously held the office. First it was Samual Huntington, who was basically grandfathered in. He was already presiding over the Continental Congress, and when the Articles went into effect, he just remained. He would later be elected to the office, but he declined the position. Thomas McKean was then elected, but served only a few months, resigning when the British surrendered at Yorktown. A new session of Congress was then held, and it was there that Hanson was elected.

A quick note. Alfred Knopf wrote a book titled The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation 1781-1789. He points out an interesting character by the name of Robert Morris. Through 1776-1777, he had conducted a lot of the Congress’s transactions, and in 1781, he was asked to serve as Financier, a position that had recently been created. He was reluctant to take the office, but Congress enticed him by giving him quite a bit of power. He was able to make all of his own appointments, with no say from Congress. Anyone in the government who handled money only served if he wanted them to. He could borrow money from any foreign country, and import and export goods, all on the country’s tab. He ran his own foreign affairs department, and could offer contracts to supply the army, without any say from Congress. He would then take over the Marine Department as well.

He actually backed governmental notes, with his own personal credit, which gave confidence back to money backed by the government. He was really the first executive officer of the United States, even though he wasn’t granted power from a constitution, but from Congress itself.

When we get down to it though, those presidents under the Articles of Confederation (12 individuals including Hanson) basically served as interim presidents. They didn’t run the country. They didn’t warrant blame or praise for what happened. They served as president, but in a much different fashion than George Washington and those who followed.

I tend to see things in shades of gray. Maybe its because I like debating with people, and with a lot of gray, there’s a lot of room for disagreements. That or I just find black and white to be too boring. I like having more substance, and room to explore.

However, I understand black and white. Its easy. It gives definitive answers. And it may just be part of human nature to see things in that manner. For our ancestors, it was a huge benefit. It allowed them to make efficient decisions that their survival depended on; this is a friend as they are in my group, that is a foe as they are other.

It is a trait that we are born with, and while at one time it may have saved our ancestors lives, it also has caused a lot of trouble. Being a historian, this issue pops up quite regularly. People have a tendency to want to categorize themselves as good, or moral, and those who differ as bad or immoral. Which may be somewhat fine, but when that sort of view is used to define historical figures, often the result is that those individuals become demonized.

Lets face it. Very few people from history, when completely examined, can be seen as perfectly good or moral. Even those who we idolize as pillars have their dark sides, especially when judged according to today’s sets of guidelines and morality. Simply, morality is subjective and tends to change throughout history. While certain guidelines may remain true, others just don’t stand the test of time. Don’t kill, still a good idea. Lets enslave others, not so good.

Mr. Lincoln

Since morality changes, as does what society views as acceptable or unacceptable, to judge an individual on today’s standards often isn’t justified, nor does it make sense. To be clear though, that doesn’t mean people get a free pass because they lived 100 years ago. But it does mean we should look at them in a different light. We can’t simply retroject our views onto the past.

This brings me to President Abraham Lincoln. Increasingly, Lincoln has come under much more scrutiny, and at least in part, for good reason. While at one time he was seen as this mythical hero of the United States, and that view hasn’t completely vanished, increasingly, a dark side of Lincoln has also come to light. For some, this dark side is all that matters, and instead of a hero, he’s been recasted as a tyrannical villain. But history is never so black and white.

To be fair, Lincoln deserves a bit of both views. He led the country through an incredibly difficult time period. He helped pave the way for complete abolishment of slavery, and for greater equality of black citizens. He helped unify the country, as well as better it through things such as land grant colleges, which include most of our public universities. And if you believe what you see in the movies, he killed vampires.

But for a good portion of his life, he was horribly racist. He oversaw the largest mass execution in the country’s history; an execution he signed off on. And he saw blacks as inferior, a point he was not shy about when running for president. However, his views also changed over time.

That’s a key point. Lincoln changed over time. We all do. Our views evolve as new information is introduced. And our views are also shaped by the society in which we belong. To take one or two actions; a single snapshot of history, and assume that is a good reflection of who someone is, just doesn’t work. People are more complex than that.

Even an event, such as the execution of 38 Dakota men, while a heinous act, is more nuanced than just black or white.

Dakota 38

In August of 1862, an uprising by Dakota tribal members in Minnesota began. It was in response to treaty violations and hunger, primarily. To put it simply, the environment at that time was a tinderbox. For six weeks, the Dakota War of 1862 waged on until the Dakota surrendered at what later became known as Camp Release in Minnesota. The uprising itself can be seen as justified. The United States had violated treaties, which can be argued easily as a justification for war.

United States forces didn’t see it that way though. Just two days after the surrender, a commission of military officers began trying Dakota men who were accused of participating in the war. 392 prisoners would be tried, and out of those, 303 sentenced to death and 16 given prison terms.

However, earlier that year, in July of 1862, a new law was passed that made it clear that the President would have to approve any death sentences that came from military commissions. And this is where all the gray area comes into play.

For Lincoln, the easy route would have been to sign off on all of the death sentences. That is what the people of Minnesota wanted, and what the soldiers wanted. It is also what local politicians were pushing for and in doing so, helped stoke a growing mob that was set to implement vigilante justice if they didn’t get their way. Lincoln was told, under no uncertain terms, that if he did not give the orders for execution, the people of Minnesota, and possibly some of the soldiers, would kill “all the Indians, old men, women and children.”

In December, he came to his decision. Only those who committed acts of rape would be executed. After only discovering 2 men who were convicted of such, he broadened the criteria to those who committed massacres, making a clear distinction between those who just took place in battles.

The reason for this is one that would also largely be implemented at the end of the Civil War. The goal was to not act in so much clemency, as the fear was that it would encourage further uprisings. At the same time, Lincoln didn’t want to act with so much severity that it would be deemed cruel.

40 Dakota men would be convicted of this. One would immediately have his death sentence commuted to ten years in prison, and a second would later have his death sentence commuted.

It is true that Lincoln could have commuted all of the 303 death sentences. Instead, he commuted the death sentences of 264 men, despite the intense pressure on him, and the very clear threat that had been leveled if he didn’t do what the people of Minnesota wanted.

At the same time, while the Dakota justification for the war may be sound, not all of their actions can be excused. Rape, the killing of children and women, the killing of unarmed non combatants isn’t justified, on either side. Some 450-800 civilians, on the side of the United States, would be murdered during the war, which included children. To turn a blind eye, and paint all the actions of the Dakota as good, and all the actions of the United States as bad is a mistake and does no justice for the overall history. To put it simply, the entire incident is much more complicated then the black and white terms many try to paint it as.

Just as an aside, the decision that Lincoln made towards the Dakota, and the rationale behind it, also were in play with how the United States treated the South after the end of the Civil War. It isn’t uncommon for war tribunals to be held, and for people who went outside of the standard practices of war to be tried and imprisoned or executed.

As with the Civil War

After the Civil War, this wasn’t an exception. Around a thousand tribunals would be held after the War. The reasoning for such acts is simple; they are to enforce the laws of war.

Like the decision in the Dakota War of 1862, after the Civil War, leniency was practiced. There would be prison sentences, as well as executions, most famously Henry Wirz and a bit less famous, Robert Kennedy. Champ Ferguson was another largely publicized execution after the war, not to mention the many more executions during the war (such as spurred on by General Order No. 252, in which Lincoln promised to treat Confederate POWs in the same manner that Union Black troops were treated when held as prisoners by the Confederates. While Lincoln couldn’t keep the promise to the T, it did result in a good number of executions as well as forced labor among Confederate POWs).

The decision was one of attempting to prevent another revolt by laying down punishment, while not being so severe as to be cruel, because reuniting and future peace was still needed. It was a fine line to walk.

In the end, history is much more complicated than the black and white picture that it is often portrayed as. And we shouldn’t shy away from that.

Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator who was also a colossal racist. He fought for their freedom, or maybe that was a political stunt. And he certainly didn’t think blacks should have the same rights as white people. Except maybe soldiers. Well actually … eh its a bit complicated. So let’s look at Lincoln and slavery.

As with most people, Lincoln’s views changed over time. His views on slavery and blacks in general were no exception. Unlike most people though, his view evolved in a very public fashion, and because of that we are left with a great deal of works that highlight his views as they progressed.

The problem with such a public evolution is that it becomes exceptionally easy to cherry pick through his statements, and portray him in whatever particular light one may want. With seeing things in black and white coming natural, Lincoln is often regulated to either the Great Emancipator, or a colossal racist, depending on the individual.

In recent years, the pendulum has begun swinging more to the negative side of the spectrum. Many historical figures, especially those with a mythical standing, have seen similar fates. The mythology that surrounds them has slowly been peeled back, and the person they were is being explored. At times though, this causes an over correction, where the person is rightly taken off of their pedestal, and then unjustly pounded into dust. When in reality, the person generally falls somewhere nearer to the center, with both their good qualities as well as their bad ones.

Viewing people in this manner, and painting a full picture is complicated. And Lincoln is nothing but complicated.

It’s Complicated

One thing that we can say about Lincoln is that his view on slavery being immoral was rather early. According to Lincoln, he couldn’t remember a time in which he didn’t think slavery was immoral. He grew up in a family that opposed slavery, a family that attended a Separate Baptists church, which was strictly opposed to slavery. Slavery would also have a factor in his family moving from Kentucky to present day Indiana, which was part of free territory.

As early as 1837, Lincoln made his first public declaration against slavery, as a 28 year old serving in the Illinois General Assembly. Throughout his career, he would continue to speak out against slavery. But then again its more complicated than that.

Lincoln was no abolitionist. He found slavery morally wrong, but there was also a problem, one that was quite large for Lincoln. Slavery was sanctioned by the Constitution. The question that Lincoln faced, as did many others, was, well what do you do about slavery then? In 1854, in his three hour speech in Peoria Illinois, he stated his conundrum. He was morally, legally, and economically opposed to slavery. But he admitted that in the current political system in which he existed, he didn’t know what to do.

That aspect of law was important to Lincoln, as can be seen in his legal career. As a practicing lawyer, and an Illinois legislator, he would be involved with a variety of cases involving slavery. Even though he was open about his moral opposition to slavery, he found himself on both sides of the issue with the clients that he represented. While he found it morally wrong for a human to own another human, it was still protected by the law, and it was his duty to abide by the law.

That’s not to say that Lincoln didn’t try to work within the system for a change. But then again, it gets complicated.

Lincoln argued that when the founding fathers penned the phrase, “all men are created equal,” that it applied to both blacks and whites alike. But that didn’t mean he thought that they should have the same political, or even social rights. In his fourth debate with Steven Douglas, at Charleston Illinois, in 1858, he made it very clear what his stance was on the matter. Douglas accused Lincoln of supporting “negro equality.” Lincoln’s response, well simply, was racist:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. “

Because of those views, Lincoln, while finding slavery immoral, and wanting to abolish it, found the best means to rid the United States of slavery completely was to have the black population leave the United States and settle in either Africa or Central America. It was the policy of colonization. It was the view that his political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, also favored. Even up to August of 1862, as he was editing the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln would hold that view. In that month, he would bring together a delegation of freed slaves with the hopes that they would support a colonization play in Central America. He argued that because of their differences, and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, it was better for both to be separated.

His argument didn’t go over very well and sparked anger among both black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were just as native to this country, and because of that, deserved the same rights as whites. Lincoln seemed to take the criticism to heart, and wouldn’t publicly mention colonization again. He completely removed a mention to it in an early draft of the Emancipation Proclamation.

However, colonization more dealt with what to do after slavery ended; it didn’t really focus on how to get rid of slavery. Lincoln believed, early on, that if slavery could be contained, it would burn out. He also thought about possibly repealing slavery gradually, and compensating slave owner for their losses.

To put it simply, Lincoln had no idea what to do about slavery. He campaigned actively against slavery in Kansas. Vehemently opposed the Kansas-Nebraska act, of 1854, an opposition that helped propel him on to a wider stage. He found slavery to be morally wrong. But how to get rid of it, and what to do with former slaves was not an easy question for Lincoln, and one that took him a long time to figure out.

Two Events

But we need to take a moment to step back and look at two events that really helped Lincoln’s evolution on the subject, and pushed him to work harder on the issue. The first was the Dred Scott case in 1857. The case made it clear that no black person, free or slave, could become a United States citizen, and thus could not petition a court for their freedom. But it went further. According to Chief Justice Roger Taney, and his allies on the court, the federal government did not have the authority to even prohibit slavery in the territories it ruled. More so, Taney also rejected the idea that free states could give freedom to the slaves who were within their borders.

With the huge conquest of Mexican territory in the Southwest, the country had grown considerably, and because of that, coupled with Taney’s new doctrine via Dred Scott case, there was fear that containing slavery would be impractical, and thus it would continue strong. Joining the Republican party, the central point that Lincoln believed the new party should organize around was the opposition to any expansion of slavery, and by doing so, choke off the institution, and hopefully alter the balance between slave and free states so that the Constitution could be amended, and slavery be abolished. It was a long game for Lincoln.

In 1858, Lincoln would take this view to the public, when he accepted the Republican nomination to run for the United States Senate, against Stephen Douglas. Even though at the time, the public did not vote for senate members (instead they were elected by the State legislature up until 1913), Lincoln and Douglas took their fight to the public with the now famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858.

Lincoln would cite the Dred Scott case by name, and it was that ruling he had in mind when he made one of his most famous speeches:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall. But I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.”

As pointed out before, Lincoln would say some racist things during those debates, after being accused of supporting “negro equality,” but he also made clear his view:

” I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. “

Lincoln would loose the senate election, but the Dred Scott case would remain the center of both constitutional and historical debates. It would also push Lincoln further, and helped lead to his election, and the Civil War.

This brings us to the second major event that helped shaped Lincoln’s evolution; the Civil War. While the Civil War was never fought to abolish slavery, slavery was intimately tied to it. In their declarations of cessation, all of the states that left the Union made it clear that slavery was at the forefront of the reasons. Because of that, from the very beginning of the Civil War, the Union was forced to deal with the issue of slavery. As slaves fled the Confederate States, the question the federal government was faced with is what are we to do with these people? The solution was that the government was going to treat them as if they were free, because they weren’t going to send them back.

This also opened up the Army to the enlistment of black men, and for Lincoln, that move, that blacks were fighting to keep the country together, made him promote at least partial suffrage; that black men who served the country deserved the right to vote. But it was more than just the right to vote that changed with Lincoln.

With the Civil War, and slaves running towards Union lines, the question of slavery was on the national agenda and had to be dealt with. With black men joining the fight to help preserve the Union, as Lincoln saw it, it really was a stimulus for him to begin changing his racial attitudes, and to see America as more of an interracial society.

That was never Lincoln’s intention for the war though. His goal was imply to save the Union, and do so in the shortest way possible as provided by the Constitution. As he wrote to the New York Tribune editor, Horace Greeley, “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.”

In closing the letter though, he made a clear distinction: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”

It was his duty as president that he had to stick with, regardless of his own personal feelings. That duty, for Lincoln, dictated that he preserve the Union.

But this did set the road to emancipation and allowed for the abolition of slavery.

One of the first steps towards this was the Emancipation Proclamation. Largely, it was a military tool. It didn’t technically free any slaves, but did two other things. First, it undermined the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation would only really go into effect when the south was defeated and rejoined the union. At that time, slaves in those states would be free. It gave hope to slaves living within the Confederate states that they could be free. Now, this didn’t extend to slaves in the border states that didn’t go to war, or even in areas of the Confederacy that were already under Union control.

The proclamation changed fundamentally the nature of the war, and turned it into a war for freedom. This had a secondary effect, where it prompted a greater exodus of slaves out of the south, and into the Union. And with that, Lincoln provided a new source of manpower. He allowed the liberated to then become the liberators.

Times Change

As the war ended, the question of slavery still loomed large though. It was partially abolished, but it still hung in somewhat of a limbo. Before the war, changing the Constitution in order to allow the abolishment seemed like an impossibility. There was no way a Constitutional Amendment would have passed pre-Civil War, and thus the end of slavery would have been a long drawn out process.

With the war though, the south took themselves out of the equation. At the end of the war though, Lincoln knew he had to act quick, and that in order to end slavery, he would have to follow the Emancipation Proclamation with a Constitutional Amendment.

Before the south was restored into the Union, the 13^th Amendment was proposed. It was thought that its passage would be quick and easy through Congress. But the House threw a wrench into the mix. For Lincoln though, the issue was of tantamount importance. The country had the ability to abolish slavery, and he took it upon himself to ensure the passage of the 13^th Amendment. He insisted it become part of the Republican platform for the upcoming Presidential election, and his efforts would finally be met with success. In January of 1865, the 13^th Amendment was passed, and it would be followed up by the 14^th and 15^th.

Now clearly, Lincoln wasn’t an untarnished hero, a mythical figure. He was flawed and had some very racist views. But as we have seen, he was also a complicated figure who held complicated beliefs. He was wholly human. He, as most people, existed within a lot of gray area. And that is all without mentioning that he grew up in a very different time, with very different ideas. Which we have to factor in. But in the end, for all of the good and the bad, he struggled to do what was right. His views may not always have been morally sound in today’s opinion, nor were all of his actions. But it also doesn’t make him a monster, and it certainly doesn’t take away from the very important contributions he made.