For academics, there is no greater sin than the alteration of a historic document. That is precisely what amateur historian Thomas P. Lowry is accused of doing in writing a “5” over a date of a pardon by Abraham Lincoln – immediately gaining fame for finding the last official act before Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865.
Lowry, 78, now insists that he was coerced into signing a confession — which he did without the aid of an attorney. For its part, the Archive says that he cannot be prosecuted because of the passage of the five-year statute of limitations.
The pardon was for Pvt. Patrick Murphy and records show that it was signed exactly one year before Lincoln’s assassination. Lowry confessed that he brought a fountain pen into the research room in 1998 and wrote a 5 over the 4 in 1864.
Trevor Plante, an Archives official, was always suspicious about the darker ink on the 5. The pardon became part of Lincoln lore but Plante could not get beyond the shade of ink. He then consulted a Lincoln collection of documents edited by Roy P. Basler in the 1950s and found the reprinted pardon with the date of April 14, 1864.
Ironically, the confession itself is now being challenged but the inspector general insists that “we have a written confession in his own hand.” Are you sure about that?
Source: Washington Post
Jonathan Turley
The reading comprehension problem is by Tootie.
The United States of America waged war. War, not murder.
It waged war for independence in 1776, to save the Union and free the slaves from 1861 to 1865, and to defeat the Axis and end the Holocaust from 1941 to 1945.
That is the United States of America in which we live today.
It is not necessarily wrong to wage war to end slavery, and it is wrong to keep claiming such a war is murder when that warfare it is not murder under any definition of the term.
By her terms, the south murdered to gain their independence and preserve their states rights.
She has still not acknowledged the historical fact that the slaveowners rejected compensated emancipation out of hand.
The accusation the Lincoln was a despot was false. He democratically sought Congressional authorization for all his actions, especially including habeas corpus. The Supreme Court upheld his actions, like the blockade, in the Prize Cases. Lincoln stood for reelection by the people (including the soldiers) in the midst of the war.
He took wartime emergency measures, because their was an armed, treasonous rebellion that threatened the existence of the nation. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The so-called confederate government resorted to a lot of war measures itself.
She has not addressed the actual historic quotations from Stephens and Jeff Davis where they said that they were fighting for slavery.
Everybody, the white southerners said they were fighting and killing to preserve slavery. Sure they wanted states rights — the states right to enslave people.
And what is this “Grow up” insult? That is a childish taunt in itself, from someone who called the posters here “simpletons.” Ha!
Tootie,
So, the slaves never tried to revolt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#Armed_insurrections_and_slave_revolts
I’m also a bit confused on your saying that the Civil War was a “government attacking the people.” Are you trying to say that Lincoln just started killing southerns, and the Confederacy had no choice but to try and form a government to resist the invasion?
I guess this is the point where I start having a hard time taking you seriously on this subject.
Gyges:
You wrote
“So I guess the question is: How do you feel about the American Revolution? Quite frankly, the Founding Fathers were much more free under British Rule than any slave ever was in the South. So, as I see it, unless you also think they were wrong in committing murder of British troops to secure their freedom, you have a pretty obvious double standard. One that at first blush seems to place a higher value on people of European descent than those from other continents.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to compare: the quest to free oneself using the right kill in self-defense(the founders)with the alleged quest to free the slaves and murder innocent people including 100,000 “soldiers” [i.e children] 16 and under?
Perhaps you don’t know how to distinguish between murder and killing? We can leave that for another discussion.
You are simply comparing apples and oranges. The “slaves” in the first case (the revolution) revolted. While the “slaves” in the other case (the civil war) did not. Albeit it was government that was attacking the people in the later (which you defend) and the government that was attacking the people in the former (which you seem to defend) as well. But you seem to wind up being a Tory. LOL
But your bringing up the British does lead to an interesting discussion about slavery in the American colonies BEFORE the War of Independence (it wasn’t technically a revolt). The founders did not replace the British government as is done in a true revolt. The British government still existed after the War Of Independence. So Revolutionary War is a misnomer.
Anyway, I’m now discussing the point made by Lysander Spooner. He demonstrated quite successfully in is Unconstitutionality Of Slavery, that slavery in the American colonies was indeed, by charter and statute under the British power here on our shores, illegal.
He writes:
“The conclusion or the whole matter is, that until some reason appears against them, we are bound by the decision of the King’s Bench in 1772, and the colonial charters. That decision declared that there was, at that time, in England, no right of property in man, (notwithstanding the English government had for a long time connived at the slave trade.)—The colonial charters required the legislation of the colonies to be “consonant to reason, and not repugnant or contrary, but conformable, or agreeable, as nearly as circumstances would allow, to the laws, statutes and rights of the realm of England.” That decision, then, if correct, settled the law both for England and the colonies. And if so, there was no constitutional slavery in the colonies up to the time of the revolution.”
Settled law. Wow.
There it is. An interesting perspective. Furthermore, he presumed that the Constitution gave room for this settled law (which clearly just about everyone was ignoring). And moreover that the Constitution allowed for slavery to fall away legally (even when it was maintained unlawfully by the slaveholders and states).
I agree with Spooner.
And you can read his fascinating essay here:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2206&chapter=206802&layout=html&Itemid=27
Alexander:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
If it is wrong to murder to stop slavery, it would certainly be wrong to murder a slave.
Grow up.
Sorry about that. My sincere apologies to AY.
Webmaster, please delete entry at January 27, 2011 at 7:37 pm.
Historically Misconstrued said, on January 27, 2011 at 11:51 am, “If the EC was not directed toward just the south how come the Northern state can still own slaves?”
Well, wtf are you talking about, HC? No Northern State, RI or Delaware or any other state can “own slaves,” whatever that means, because slavery is banned everywhere by the 13th Amendment.
Get that? Thirteenth Amendment.
“If the EC was not directed toward just the south…” What do you mean by “EC”? Do you mean Emancipation Proclamation? If you meant that the Emancipation Proclamation (EP) was directed just to the south, then say so.
The EP was a military, wartime measure based upon military necessity. Slave labor was an essential element of the southern white military machine. Slave labor was used to build fortifications, to transport material, and for many other uses. The south used slave labor just as the Germans and Japanese used slave labor in World War II. That is why the EP applied to areas in rebellion.
The EP denied this labor to the treasonous rebels. It told the slaves to abandon their feilds and masters and move to Union lines for freedom. It freed them as the Union Army moved south. It enlisted them in the Union Army, 180,000 strong as Stephens complained so bitterly up above. They helped to win their own freedom, to save the Union, and to abolish slavery everywhere in the U.S., forever.
The EP could not have applied legally in the border states or anywhere else in the north because those slaves were of no military use to the south.
Get it. They could not be freed on the basis of military necessity because they had no military use to the south.
JEB Stuart seized wagons (Union property) during the Gettysburg campaign (while negligently failing to give Lee intelligence). So the Union seized slaves (southern property when it moved south.
Lee’s troops sought to capture free black Americans during the Gettysburg campaign and send them back south to be sold into slavery. Some champion of states rights.
Historically misconstrued?
Really?
These southern historical myths about the Civil war are pathetic
Observer, you can actually steal anyone’s Gavatar in like, 2 seconds. The only thing a blawg community has as a defense against the cowardly, passive-aggressive tactics of an agent provocateur is trust and your reputation as a poster on that blawg.
Mike S.,
What mespo said. That was “A” game there. Good show.
Observer,
There is precedent for trolls stealing avatars here. One of the paid trolls once stole mine and started posting under the name “Peyton Farquar” with my image. Alas, he was too dumb to withstand my retribution and, as I have a custom made my avatar from a very high resolution image, a dead give away because he didn’t color correct his poor low resolution copy. The Professor is very lenient as well as tolerant and it takes a lot to get banned, however, stealing someone’s identity will indeed get one banned (also based on precedent).
Mike S:
Great summary, analysis, and insight as usual.
as you have said Observer…it is true….I do not own the exclusive rights to that gravitar….I pulled it off of the public domain…
Elf gravitar icon is linked to his email.
I must confess it wasn’t I who did the posting….I have finally settled in after a hellishness day of yard work…and some spring cleaning…I usually take good care of the yard and its easy to do other things after that while everyone is breaking their backs in March or April…I already have a green yard that had to be mowed….and rugs were take out to air and then the rug doctor was used…
Observer, excellent posting.
Man, this thread has been attracting some very good writing and has been a pleasure to read.
Excellent posting Mike, as always.
Observer, How do you know it’s AY masquerading as Historically Misconstrued? AY likes to stir the pot but that doesn’t mean it’s him.
Personally, I don’t like the idea of shadow posters, if you don’t have the guts to make a statement someone’s face then STFU. Especially if you’re casting aspersions or being snarkey as in the HM posting, you should step up. Obvious, humorous postings where the ‘handle’ is part of the humor is excepted of course.
Other than that, just put it out there under your screen-name and let the chips fall where they may. Passive aggressive posting is childish IMO.
History Bluff, January 27, 2011 at 9:24 am, asked “So what about payment for the thefts of the Yankee’s intruders. Where is the Souths DUE Process. It was stolen by a piece of paper.”
So, Mr., Mrs. or Ms. Bluff, what about the payments for the unrequited toil of up to four million slaves for over two centuries?
The “Souths DUE Process”?
Better be careful about what you are asking for.
The souths stole the lives of four million human beings, and stole the lives of their ancestors and descendants, while those human beings were being raped and tortured for centuries, for all the time amassing the wealth of their coerced labor.
THEN, these souths have the unmitigated nerve, the gall, to claim that their process was stolen.
It was the souths who did the stealing.
Your bluff has been called, Sir History B.
“Mr. Lincoln while in history as a great president has approval rating lower than any president ever.”
What does that mean, AY?
Anonymously Yours said, anonymously, “If the EC was not directed toward just the south how come the Northern state can still own slaves?”
Well, wtf are you talking about, AY? No Northern State, RI or Delaware or any other state can “own slaves,” whatever that means, because slavery is banned everywhere by the 13th Amendment.
Get that? Thirteenth Amendment.
“If the EC was not directed toward just the south…” What do you mean by “EC”? Do you mean Emancipation Proclamation? If you meant that the Emancipation Proclamation (EP) was directed just to the south, then say so.
The EP was a military, wartime measure based upon military necessity. Slave labor was an essential element of the southern white military machine. Slave labor was used to build fortifications, to transport material, and for many other uses. The south used slave labor just as the Germans and Japanese used slave labor in World War II. That is why the EP applied to areas in rebellion.
The EP denied this labor to the treasonous rebels. It told the slaves to abandon their feilds and masters and move to Union lines for freedom. It freed them as the Union Army moved south. It enlisted them in the Union Army, 180,000 strong as Stephens complained so bitterly up above. They helped to win their own freedom, to save the Union, and to abolish slavery everywhere in the U.S., forever.
The EP could not have applied legally in the border states or anywhere else in the north because those slaves were of no military use to the south.
Get it. They could not be freed on the basis of military necessity because they had no military use to the south.
JEB Stuart seized wagons (Union property) during the Gettysburg campaign (while negligently failing to give Lee intelligence). So the Union seized slaves (southern property when it moved south.
Lee’s troops sought to capture free black Americans during the Gettysburg campaign and send them back south to be sold into slavery. Some champion of states rights.
Historically misconstrued?
Really?
These southern historical myths about the Civil war are pathetic.
Mike S,
Well said.
Mike S.,
As usual, well said!
What is amazing is that the person that professes to know it all in reality knows very little of the sum and substance of reality. History is readily rewritten to give the greatest gleam to the one that is authored. Mr. Lincoln while in history as a great president has approval rating lower than any president ever. It is my belief that it is either R.I. or Delaware that has no prohibition against slavery. If the EC was not directed toward just the south how come the Northern state can still own slaves?