Camp Gagnon - Abraham Lincoln’s DARK Legacy Exposed

Episode Date: July 23, 2025

Who was the real Abraham Lincoln and what were his true intentions? Today we discuss and cover the dark, mostly hidden history of Abraham Lincoln. We’ll discuss Abe Lincoln’s controversial views on equality, Lincoln’s relationship with Native Americans, what the Lieber Code was, Lincoln’s later racial views, and other interesting topics. WELCOME TO CAMP! 🏕️Shoutout to our sponsor: OdooTry Odoo with a 14-day free trial at: http://Odoo.com/CAMP👕🧢 GET YOUR CAMP DRIP HERE: http://camp-rd.com🏕️ Get Today In History Email Here (Free): https://camp.beehiiv.com/🎟️ 🎫 Comedy Tour Tickets Here: https://markgagnonlive.comTimestamps:0:00 Who Was Abe Lincoln1:40 Abe Lincoln's Controversial View on Equality8:36 Lincoln Suspends Habeas Corpus15:25 Civilians Forced To Have Military Trials18:46 Lincoln's Relationship With Native Americans + The Dakota War23:29 The Lieber Code27:55 Emancipation Proclamation Loopholes + Imperial Presidency31:45 The Greenback Dollar34:47 Shermans March38:52 Abe Lincoln Made Hard Choices40:27 Lincoln's Later Racial Views42:47 The Controversial Ideas Lincoln Left Us

Today we're diving in to the dark side of one of the most beloved historical figures in American history. Abraham Lincoln, he is beloved across American history, his faces on the penny. Same president who issued the Emancipation Proclamation Freeing the Slaves, once declared in a public debate that he opposed political and social equality between races. He also happened to imprison tens of thousands of American citizens without trial. Today we're going to get to the bottom of who Abraham Lincoln was, not only looking at the amazing things that he did, but we'll also examine some of the, the bad things on this record. We're going to examine Lincoln's explicitly racist statements during

the 1858 Senate campaign, his systematic suspension of habeas corpus, his administration's treatment of Native Americans, not for the desire to tear down an American icon, but rather to add fullness and context to the reality that all human beings are good and bad, and that great men are hardliver, good men, and that all people are capable of evil. So, let's jump in. What's up, people, and welcome back to history camp. My name is Mark Yagel. The Thank you for joining me in my tent where every single week we explore the most fascinating, controversial, and interesting stories from every historical figure throughout all history, throughout all time, anywhere in the universe. Yes. And today I'm joined by my dear friends,

Gabe and Dave Sanchez helping produce this whole thing. How are we doing, gentlemen? All right, all right, all right. That's enough of that. You know what I mean? You guys just constantly yapping, nonstop, jibber jabber. And we don't have time because today we're diving in to the dark side of one of the most beloved historical. figures in American history. I'm sure this will not be controversial. We're talking about Abraham Lincoln, honest Abe, as they call it, or, you know, it's mostly honest and sometimes had some crazy theories about race, but who doesn't, right? Abraham Lincoln is a fascinating figure because, of course, he is beloved across American history, his faces on the penny. He got domed

by, you know, a gay guy, I think. It was in a theater, allegedly. People think he was gay. No one knows really anything about him. But today we're going to get to the bottom of who Abraham Lincoln was, not only looking at the amazing things that he did, like obviously, you know, keep the union together, emancipation of slavery in America, which is obviously a horrible, horrible practice that was done in the United States, but we'll also examine some of the, you know, sort of bad things on this record, some of the things that are, you know, a little unsavory. Again, not for the desire to tear down an American icon, but rather to add fullness and context to the reality that all human beings are good and bad. great men are hardly ever good men and that all people are capable of evil. So let's jump in.

Abraham Lincoln was a guy who proclaimed that, quote, the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. He also happened to imprison tens of thousands of American citizens without trial. Sometimes you got to do some dirty shit to get things going, you know what I mean, crack a few eggs. Same president who issued the emancipation proclamation free in the slaves once declared in a public debate that he opposed political and social equality between races, stating that there must be a position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having a superior position assigned to the white race. Yikes. Not ideal. But, hey, it was a debate. I've said some crazy stuff in a debate. You know what I mean? You're

acting like your mom. We've all said things that we don't think is true, but we just happen to say it. Now, this, again, is an expiration and a critical analysis of Abraham Lincoln and how his ideologies develop. You know what I mean? I'm not here to just tear down this iconic guy, but to understand the full complexity of one of our most revered leaders, right? So this analysis is based entirely on primarily, you know, primary historical sources, congressional records, military documents, newspaper accounts from the 1860s, and Lincoln's own recorded speeches and writings. And what we're going to explore will challenge the simplified narrative that you and I probably learned, you know, in seventh grade U.S. history class. We're going to examine Lincoln's explicitly racist statements during the 1858 Senate campaign, his systematic, you know, suspension of habeas corpus, his administration's treatment of Native Americans, and the unprecedented expansion of executive power that sets, you know, a dangerous precedent for, you know, presidents even in the current day. And again, this is not character assassination. It's just analysis. So to me, I think it makes it, you know, I think it makes us better citizens by showing us that even our greatest leaders can make decisions that contradict our most fundamental values. So let's go all the way back. September 18th, 1858, Charleston, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln stands there before thousands of voters and delivers what would become, you know, some of his most damaging statements on race. He says, as I mentioned before, I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.

Lincoln declared this and received thunderous applause from the crowd. But he doesn't stop there. He went on to explicitly oppose black Americans' right to vote and serve on juries and hold public office or marry white people. And perhaps his most shocking statement, he says, I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of black. Americans nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people. He concluded this section of his speech by stating unequivocally that there must be a position of superior and inferior. And he says, I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position position

on the white race. So not ideal, right? These aren't just private thoughts of, you know, a guy or like off the cuff remarks. You know what I mean? He's not on the live stream. and just said something crazy. These were carefully pre-prepared statements, delivered 2,000s of potential voters,

and published in newspapers across the state. Yikes. Now, again, many people will say that this was Lincoln's attempt to, you know, gain public favor and try to win his role in the U.S. Senate, that this is what you had to do at the time in order to curry favor with the American public because, of course, the American public at the time,

in particular, was a racist voting bloc. So, you know, that is one way to interpret it. But of course, other people would say, you know, that his words represent a clear endorsement of white supremacist ideals. And he stated them in the most public form possible during his campaign. And his statements, other people will point out, were not made necessarily in a vacuum. They were, like I said, part of a political strategy in 1858. You know, supporting abolition was often equated with, like, you know, supporting racial equality. And his opponent, you know, Stephen Douglas, had been.

been relentlessly attacking Lincoln as a black Republican who favored what Douglas called African-American equality. Technically, it's, is it different type of equality? I just don't feel comfortable saying it, right, Gabe? That's crazy. You know what I mean? You're from, what country? Guatemala. Guatemala and? I don't even say that one. You know what I mean? So, as a result, you know, he's being called a black Republican. He's being attacked. And this is a charge that, you know, at the time could be politically fatal. So what does he do? Right? He's got to make a decision here. He's in a tough spot. Douglas's strategy was to paint Lincoln as a radical who would overturn the racial hierarchy that most, you know, most white people in Illinois took for granted. In response, Lincoln attempted to thread the needle by opposing slavery while simultaneously assuring white voters that he didn't support. racial equality. And this political maneuvering reveals Lincoln's willingness to embrace and promote some racist ideals in order to, you know, serve his electoral interests. The debate over whether Lincoln's statement reflected his genuine belief or was just merely, you know, politically

expedient, kind of sort of misses the point in some regards, right? Regardless of his private thoughts, he's willing to publicly endorse white supremacy and racial discrimination in order to win votes. And, you know, his words give legitimacy to racist ideology and help normalize the ideas that, you know, opposing slavery didn't require believing in racial equality. It's an interesting conundrum. You know what I mean? It's like, all right, he's willing to bend. Let's say, you know, I think it's probably likely that he's, you know, views, you know, black Americans and white Americans as morally equal, which is obviously the right position to have. But he's willing to compromise this in order to win votes. It does that, is that a, you know, ethical gray area. I think it depends on what you do with it. You know what I mean? Like if you

are trying to curry favor of a people and you say something that is potentially morally hazardous, but then you use that power to then push, you know, the moral framework of the society forward, you kind of look past it. You know what I mean? You're like, all right, you did some bad stuff from the beginning to get a good dub at the end. You know, the ends justified the means. But if you just are saying racist shit and then get elected and then continue to do racist shit, then it's like, all right, it's not. ideal. But I don't think that's the case with Lincoln. I think he ultimately did the right thing, and it almost cost the entire country. It's, you know, sanctity, but he held it together. So,

shout out to him. But it says an end there. There's some other things that Lincoln did that are a little tricky. Habius corpus, you probably heard of it. Literally means you have the body in Latin, which is what I say to Puerto Rican women as they walk down the street. Right, David? habeas corpus literally means you have the body in latin which is what i say to myself when i look at the mirror right when i look at the mirror i'm like oh habeas corpus mother and uh yeah it represents one of the most fundamental protections in american law right it's it's an ancient right basically that says that the government uh it basically requires the government to justify why it's holding someone in custody and it prevents like arbitrary

imprisonment without trial, which is a pretty good rule. U.S. Constitution explicitly protects the right, stating that the privilege of the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion and evasion, you know, that the public safety might require it. The Constitution grants this power of suspension exclusively to Congress, but not the president. Article 1, Section 9, places this authority firmly within the legislative branch, reflecting, obviously, the founder's suspicion of executive power and their commitment to preventing a single person from wielding the power to imprison citizens without some type of judicial oversight. But April 27, 1861, just weeks after the civil war begins, Lincoln unilaterally suspends habeas corpus along the military line

between D.C. and Philadelphia, effectively giving military commanders the power to arrest and attain civilians without trial. This decision comes without congressional approval and in direct violation of the constitutional requirements that only Congress could authorize such suspensions. The constitutional crisis deepened when Chief Justice Roger Taney, in the case X part Merriman, ruled that Lincoln's suspension was unconstitutional in order the release of John Merriman, a Maryland secessionist who had been imprisoned by military authorities. Lincoln simply ignored the Supreme Court's ruling. basically said, I don't give a shit. And some people say that this set a dangerous precedent for

presidential defiance of sort of the judicial authority of the land. By September 1863, Lincoln had expanded the suspension nationwide, proclaiming that, quote, the privilege of the right of habeas corpus is suspended throughout the United States for anyone involved in, quote, any disloyal practice. This sweeping proclamation gave military authorities virtually unlimited power to arrest and detain anyone they wanted around the whole country. And the suspension of habeas corpus resulted in the imprisonment of an estimated 13,000 in the low end, up to like 40,000 American civilians during Lincoln's presidency. The exact number is disputed because many arrests were never properly documented. And these weren't just Confederate spies or like saboteurs. They included ordinary citizens whose only

crime was expressing opposition to the war or to Lincoln's administration. And among the most prominent victims was Clement Valdingham, an Ohio congressman and leader of the anti-war copperhead movement. Valdingham was arrested at his home at 2.30 in the morning by federal troops for giving a speech critical of the war effort. He was tried by a military tribunal and sentenced to imprisonment for the duration of the war, despite being a sitting member of Congress with full constitutional immunity for his speeches. And thousands of other Americans found themselves imprisoned for months or even years without a trial, often based on nothing more than, you know, maybe just like an accusation or suspected disloyalty.

Many were held in military prisons under harsh conditions with no legal recourse and really no way to challenge their detention. The psychological impact on families and obviously communities were just completely devastating as the threat of arbitrary arrest created a climate of fear and kind of, you know, a self-censorship. Lincoln's administration systematically targeted newspapers and journalists who criticized the war effort or their administration's policies. The New York World, the Chicago Times, and dozens of other newspapers were shut down.

Their editors were often arrested and printing equipment was seized by federal troops. These weren't temporary wartime measures, but many publications remained closed for months or just permanently after this and basically ceased operations. And the rest of newspaper editors sent kind of a message to the press, right, criticized the administration at your own peril. editors like Dennis Mahoney of the Dubuque, Harold, and Archibald McGregor of the Westchester Jeffersonian, were imprisoned for months without a trial, their only crime being the publication of editorials opposing Lincoln's policies. This systematic oppression of, you know, press freedom created a culture of self-censorship that went far beyond the newspapers that were directly targeted.

You know, publishers and editors across the country began moderating their criticisms. of the administration knowing that too much dissent would result in imprisonment. And the effect was to severely limit public debate and criticism during one of the most crucial periods in American history. What's up, guys? We're going to take a break really quick because you own a small business or maybe you work for a small business and I am about to make your life so much easier. Let's say hypothetically, you own a little furniture business, right?

And you're struggling to keep track of the raw materials, the production schedule, invoicing clients, all that stuff. Well, that's why I want to tell you about Odo, okay? Because with Odo, it's an all-in-one business platform that streamlines everything. Now you have inventory management, you have manufacturing, you have accounting apps that will make everything so simple. So now, if you have a small business, you can monitor the inventory in real time, schedule production calls more effectively, and you can send invoices automatically,

all from one platform. Plus, you get a customized CRM to track sales leads and follow up with potential clients. boosting your closing rates. Back in the day, you'd probably have to get, you know, some, you know, Ivy League operator, business person that's able to make everything happen for you. But now with Odu, it cuts it all out. And I'm sure you're thinking, okay, if this is going to make my life easier, give me more free time to spend with my friends, family, and playing softball, and make me more money.

It must be crazy expensive. This is the good news. Listeners of this program are going to get a 14-day free trial. That's right. You get two weeks with Odu completely for free. when you go to odoo.com slash camp. That's right.

Odu.com use the promo code camp and you will get 14 days for free. Just to try it out. See if you like it. If it's not for you, you don't need it. But Odu is going to make your life so much easier.

Everything you need all in one place, save time, make more money. Let's get back to the show. So again, it's tricky because you look at Lincoln and you're like, yeah, he's on the right side, right? Like he's on the side

of liberating slaves in America. That is obviously the moral position. But given all the chaos of the world, war, he's also willing to, you know, seemingly attack and even arrest people that are dissenting against his administration. Now, of course, when you're on the right side, you're like, yeah, no, that ends justify the means. You've got to do it. But if someone on the opposite side to this, you'd be like, oh, this guy's a tyrant and a terrible person. It's just interesting that it seems like we care less about what someone does and more why they're doing it, you know? Like you look at,

you know, presidents today, whether it's, you know, Biden, Trump, Obama, whatever, and they do stuff, but if it seems like they're doing it in the interest of the American people, you're like, yeah, you know, it's fine, whatever, you know, foreign action, whatever, continuing some foreign war, but they're trying to help America, da-da-da-da. But then if you do the same exact thing, but it seems like, oh, you know, your intentions are bad, you're doing the wrong thing. Then all of a sudden that's when we get caught up. So maybe that's a rule for leaders if you're trying to take over power.

Make it seem like you're doing it for the noble cause. You know what I mean? That's important. As long as you're being noble, then people will kind of let you do whatever you want. But it also doesn't stop there. You know, we have habeas corpus. People are kind of getting arrested without trial. And some people did get trials, and those were not ideal either.

So Lincoln's administration established these military tribunals to try civilians. But the issue is that they were doing them in areas where regular civil courts were still functioning. And this is a practice that violates the fundamental principles of due process and civilian control over the military. So these tribunals operated under military. law rather than civilian legal standards denying defendants basic rights like the presumption of innocence and now the right to legal counsel and you know a jury of one's own peers all that kind of stuff and the use of these military tribunals for civilians was you know particularly an issue because it removed cases from the civilian justice system where defendants would have full constitutional

protections so military courts under operate under different rules of evidence for example like allowing hearsay testimony, and were often presided over by military officers who had no legal training, and we're just directly subordinate to the Lincoln administration. So military tribunals during Lincoln's presidency resulted in numerous executions based on, you know, some questionable evidence and some flawed legal proceedings. The most notorious example would later be the trial of Lincoln's assassination conspirators, where defendants were denied basic due process rights and executed based on evidence that many legal scholars today consider insufficient. These executions, again, might have been correct in that time, and perhaps they did the right thing because, you know, these guys are terrible assassins, but it does sit a dangerous precedent for future administrations.

So, you know, this, again, demonstrates that the executive branch could bypass civilian courts and could execute American citizens through these military tribunals and the speed and the secrecy of these proceedings combined with, you know, the limited. rights afforded to defendants and, you know, not having, you know, right to fair trial, all that stuff raises serious questions about whether justice was truly being served or whether the government was simply sort of eliminating inconvenient, potentially guilty opponents. And of course, another thing with, you know, old Lincoln that people like to bring up is the Native Americans. You know what I mean? I don't know if anyone treated them well, let the record show. Like, I don't think anyone was like, oh, these are my. boys. We have to ask some natives about that. Like, did anyone do a good job? But, you know, Lincoln,

like many presidents, doesn't have a gleaming record when it comes to this issue. So even while fighting a civil war, Lincoln's administration aggressively pursued westward expansion at the expense of many native tribes. The construction of the Transcontinental Railroad authorized by Lincoln in 62 required the seizure of vast territories from indigenous people who had lived on these lands for, you know, hundreds, if not thousands of years. Military resources that could have been used in the Civil War were instead deployed to clear Native Americans from the path of American expansion. The displacement of tribes during the Civil War was particularly brutal because it occurred

when the federal government's attention was supposed to be, you know, focused on preserving the Union. Instead, Lincoln's administration simultaneously fought two wars, one against the Confederacy and another smaller war against the Native Americans who stood in the way of Westward expansion. This dual focus revealed that, you know, even during the nation's greatest crisis, the drive for territorial conquest still is a massive priority. So the Dakota War of 1862 began when the Dakota people facing starvation due to some delayed government payments and some crop failures launched an uprising in Minnesota that resulted in the death of approximately five to

600 settlers and soldiers. The conflict was fueled. by years of broken treaties and forced relocations and systematic theft of Dakota lands by these white settlers and government officials. So following the defeat of the Dakota forces, military tribunals conducted mass trials that were, you know, little more than legal theater, you could say. In some cases, trials lasted less than five minutes, with defendants unable to understand the proceedings because they spoke no English and were provided no interpreters. Of the 362 Dakota men, 303 were sentenced to death. This is the largest mass death sentence in American history.

Lincoln ultimately commuted the sentence of 264 men, but authorized the execution of 38 Dakota Warriors on December 26, 1862 in Mancato, Minnesota. This still remains the largest mass execution in the United States history. The men were hung simultaneously on a single gallo. bodies left dangling as a warning to the other tribes. The decision to execute these men was made despite various questions about the fairness of their trials and, you know, the evidence against many of them. I mean, it's sick. He, you know, commuted 264 other sentences. Thirty-eight of them, obviously, you know, they got what they had to get. Maybe Lincoln, you know, you got to

take on his word, right? Honest Abe. You're like, all right, he knew something about these 38 dudes. But still, it's just a wild record, right? You think about Abraham Lincoln. You're You're like, this is a guy that fights for the disenfranchised and, you know, tries to do the right thing. And then you see that he killed 30 people. And you're like, ooh, okay. That's why I never want to be president, dude, you got to do some dirty shit. Even if you're like the best one. Even if you're the one you're like, oh, this guy is the, he's our goat.

He's the Steph Curry being a president. You're still going to, you know, hit a couple bricks. So the Homestead Act of 1862, signed by Lincoln, accelerated the seizure of a lot of Native American lands by offering, 160 acres of public land to any American citizen willing to farm it for five years. The problem was that, you know, a lot of this land was actually the traditional territory of some Native American tribes who never gave the land away. They were just like, you're giving our land to other people? And the act resulted in the rapid settlement of millions of acres of Native American territory, basically making it impossible for the tribes to even maintain any semblance of their traditional way of life. The influx of homesteaders created,

you know, a ton of conflict with Native Americans and provided a lot of justification for the military campaigns to clear tribes from their lands. So, you know, you'd have a settler there, then a Native American guy would be nearby, and then they would get into some type of conflict. And then the government could be like, yo, these natives are attacking our guys. We've got to go in there. But it's like, you put them there in the first place, story oldest time. The long-term consequences included the destruction of, you know, a lot of trouble. and their sovereignty and their connection with the land, a lot of forced assimilation of Native Americans into broader American society, typically to their detriment.

Another interesting little issue in Lincoln's presidency comes in 1863 when Lincoln authorized the creation of the Lieber Code. This is officially known as the instructions for the government of armies of the United States in the field. But we just call it Libre Code. It was written by this guy, Francis Lieber. He's a German-American legal scholar. and this document represents the first attempt to codify the rules of warfare for the U.S. military.

And the code was presented as a civilian influence on warfare designed to reduce unnecessary suffering and protect non-combatants. Sounds pretty good, right? It's like, nice, honest Abe, crushing it once again. However, the Libre Code was also a practical document designed to justify the increasingly brutal tactics that Union forces were implausen against Confederate soldiers and civilians. And I know, oh, well, who cares about the Confederates? I agree. No one's crying for the Confederates.

We're in alignment here. But you can't just break the rules when it is, you know, in your interest and in the interests of the good guys. You know what I mean? Cops got to play by the same rules we do, right? So rather than truly limiting warfare, the code provided legal cover for practices that would today be considered more crimes, including, you know, destruction of civilian property and harsh treatment of prisoners, all sorts of stuff.

The Libra Code explicitly permitted the destruction of civilian property when deemed necessary by the military, stating that, quote, the commander of the hostile country may levy taxes and exact military services for the maintenance of his army, and he may take and use what he needs for his army. This provision effectively authorized the wholesale looting and destruction that characterized Sherman's march to the sea and similar campaigns. The Code also sanctioned harsh treatment of irregular fighters and guerrillas, allowing military commanders to execute captured partisans basically without a trial.

Article 82 stated that men or squads of men who commit hostilities, whether by fighting or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organization, are not public enemies, and therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war. So they could basically just do whatever they wanted to them. Perhaps it was troubling the code permitted retaliation against civilian populations for the actions of guerrilla fighters. So this provision was used to justify the burning of like entire towns and, you know, the displacement of civilian populations throughout the South, creating precedence that would be used to justify similar actions in some future conflicts. Now, again, no one cares about the Confederates. Sure, you know, these people were trying to be slavery and that-da-da-da-da-da. It's not good. But just like with any conflict today, you know, you can imagine that, you know, there's, you know, a combatant side and there's perhaps a government and the government, the military is doing whatever you think is the wrong action. But there are also civilians that are, you know, in that nation that, you know, should be protected and that the civilians that are not actually engaging, you know, women, children, they shouldn't be killed just because their government is carrying out some type of war. You should be trying to take out military targets. But again, it seems like, in this case, that was not necessarily the case.

You know, the Union Army was coming in and just kind of take whatever they wanted, burning down towns, displacing civilians, things today that we would look at and be like, oof, not good. We kind of look past it because we're on the side of the union. We're like, yeah, slavery is bad. But, you know, if you were trying to take the moral high ground, should you take it all the way through, this is the question. Now, it doesn't end there.

You also have, you know, executive power and the expansion of a lot of, you know, basically presidential abilities. And this, again, is not inherently bad when Abraham Lincoln does it, but it does create a dangerous precedent. So Lincoln, as many people know, dramatically expands presidential power beyond anything the Constitution's framers had envisioned, often acting without congressional approval or in direct defiance of judicial rulings. He spent federal funds without congressional appropriation and established new military departments and creates new bureaucracies without legislative authorization. These actions, again, are not inherently bad in their own right because, you know,

he's generally doing it for the right reasons, but it does create a dangerous precedent for presidential power that future executives would later exploit. So the imposition of martial law, for example, across large portion of the United States represented another unprecedented expansion of executive authority. Lincoln placed entire states under military governance, suspending civilian courts, putting military commanders in charge of, you know, these civil administrations. And this militarization of civilian governments violates a fundamental principle of American democracy, right? It creates a model for authoritarian rule during times of crisis. And Lincoln's willingness to ignore a lot of

these judicial rulings, particularly during the ex-part Merriman case that we talked about before, again, created just a dangerous precedent that presidents could simply disregard Supreme Court decisions when they conflicted with executive policy. And this undermining of judicial authority just goes against the constitutional system of checks and balances. So while the Emancipation Proclamation is remembered as a great moral achievement, which it was, it was actually issued as a war measure

rather than a humanitarian policy. And it raised serious constitutional questions about presidential authority. Lincoln himself acknowledged that he had no constitutional power to, quote, free slaves in peacetime, but claimed that his war powers as commander-in-chief gave him the authority to confiscate enemy property, including slaves. It was pretty clever, right? He's kind of like working with the language of the law in order to exercise his mission. And the proclamation's limited scope revealed its primarily strategic rather than, you know, a moral purpose.

It freed slaves in areas still in rebellion against the United States while explicitly including slaves in border states loyal to the union in areas of of the Confederacy already under union control. So what does that mean? This selective application means that the proclamation actually freed not the total amount of slaves, right? It basically allowed slavery to continue in areas under union control. And the constitutional problem with the Emancipation Proclamation went beyond its scope to its very foundation.

The president had assumed the power to unilaterally alter the property laws of entire states without congressional approval or any type of amendment. And this expansion of executive power again set precedents that future presidents would use to justify their own unilateral actions in times of crisis. So the expansion of these executive powers creates an issue, right? Woodrow Wilson cited Lincoln's example when suppressing dissent during World War I. Franklin Roosevelt invoked Lincoln when interning Japanese Americans during World War II. And George W. Bush even a reference Lincoln when authorizing warrantless surveillance after 9-11. Now, again, this is not necessarily Lincoln's fault, but it is worth noting that his behavior did create a dangerous precedent

for presidents to use unauthorized power down the line. The growth of what historians call imperial presidency can be traced directly to precedents established during Lincoln's administration. The idea that, you know, presidents could act unilaterally during times of crisis and, you know, suspend constitutional rights became embedded in American political culture, making it easier for future executives to concentrate this power. Constitutional scholars have long warned about the dangers of these precedents, knowing that each crisis becomes an opportunity for presidents to just continue taking more power unilaterally, with few of these expansions ever going backwards. So Lincoln's presidency established the template for this pattern. showing how even well-intentioned leaders doing the right thing, trying to use whatever means they have possible to, you know, push the moral framework of our country into the future, could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the American government. Abraham Lincoln also introduced something in 1862 that really changed the sort of economic foundation that America was built on. So in 1862, facing a financial crisis caused by the enormous costs of the Civil War, Lincoln authorized a creation.

of a new paper currency backed not by gold or silver, but solely by the government's promise to pay. These were called Greenbacks, and they represented the first time in American history that the federal government issued a fiat currency, just a money with no intrinsic value other than the government's guarantee. And the greenback system was revolutionary and, of course, controversial because it abandoned the gold standard that had anchored American currency since the nation's founding. By printing money without gold backing, the government could finance, the war without raising taxes or borrowing money. It also created inflation that acted as a hidden tax on all the Americans who held dollars. The Greenback system created clear winners and losers in

American society with the benefits and cost distributed in ways that favored some over others. So debtors benefited enormously because they could repay their debts with an inflated currency that was worth less than when they borrowed the money. Farmers with mortgages, small business owners with loans and others with fixed debts saw their real debt burden increase because inflation reduced the value of their money. However, creditors, people on fixed incomes and those who had saved money in banks suffered devastating losses as inflation eroded the value of their wealth inherently. Elderly people living on savings and workers with fixed wages and bondholders saw their real income declined sharply as prices rose faster.

than their incomes. This redistribution of wealth was often harmful to many vulnerable members of society that had no way to protect themselves against inflation. And the economic instability created by the Greenback system persisted long after the Civil War ended, contributing to many financial panics and economic uncertainty that plagued the American economy for decades. The precedent of using monetary policy as a tool of economic warfare would be repeated in many future conflicts with similar consequences for economic stability. I mean, this is a tough one, because I don't know what other options Lincoln had, right? Like they're facing a financial crisis. You could tax the heck out of, you know, all your constituents, or you can borrow money and send

your country into more debt. Or you do this third option, which obviously changes the economic framework of your nation and causes inflation, but it also allows for you to pay for things without having to, you know, affect your constituents and taxing them or taking more of their money. Because you got to get money from somehow to pay for the war. So either you take it on the front end through taxes, or you take it on the back end through inflation, or you take it even farther down the line by borrowing money that then you have to pay back in, you know, 50, 100 years. So, I don't know. I give Abe kind of a pass on that one because that's tough, right? I mean, you got to pay for war somehow. But people also will point to the destruction of civilian

infrastructure. We touched on this a little bit in one of the earlier sections, but in more detail, you have something known as Sherman's March. So this guy, General William Tecumseh Sherman, marches to the sea and has this subsequent campaign around the Carolinas, and it represents this brilliant moment of, you know, the Union soldiers basically taken back the South and the country to try to leave. And to many in the South, it also represents a strategy of targeting civilian infrastructure, and property to break the will of many people in the South. So Sherman's forces systematically destroyed railroads and mills and factories and livestock and food supplies and just basically destroyed everything in their path.

This hard war philosophy was explicitly designed to make the civilian population suffer for their support of the Confederacy. Sherman himself wrote that he, quote, wanted to make Georgia howl and believe that targeting civilians was necessary to end the war quickly. His force is destroyed an estimated one hundred million dollars worth of civilian property, which today is roughly like 1.5, 1.6 billion, leaving thousands of families homeless and destitute. And the systematic destruction extended beyond military targets, including churches and schools, libraries. And this targeting of civilian infrastructure was designed to demoralize the population and demonstrate the futility of continued

resistance, which, you know, again, you're fighting for the good guys, so we don't give a shit. But it also violates, you know, traditional principles of warfare that distinguishes, you know, that basically distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. And the deliberate targeting of civilian property, again, raises questions about the morality and legal of some Sherman's tactics, even by standards of the 1860s. International law at the time, though not as developed as it is obviously today, recognizes his principles that prohibited the unnecessary destruction of civilian property and required military forces to distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilian infrastructure.

Sherman did not do that, right? His forces went far beyond the military necessity and destroyed property with no strategic value and just kind of inflicted suffering on civilians who really posed no threat, but he just wanted them to feel the burden of their actions. This precedent set by Sherman, again, what Sherman did, you could be like, oh, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But again, American law is built so much on precedent. And, you know, it would later be used to justify similar tactics in future conflicts, including the strategic bombing of civilian targets in World War II and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Vietnam, you know, basically saying like, hey, we're going

to go to Vietnam and destroy, you know, civilian churches and schools because, hey, we did it in America and it worked out here and we were on the right side here. and obviously we're on the right side there, so let's destroy their shit. The idea that targeting civilians was an acceptable way to break morale became kind of embedded in military doctrine, and the consequences of that extended far beyond the Civil War. Now, of course, Sherman is the one that did these campaigns, but Lincoln bore ultimate responsibility as the commander-in-chief

for authorizing and supporting the tactics. I mean, Lincoln was fully aware of Sherman's methods and gave him explicit approval of the destruction of civilian property. In his correspondence with Sherman, Lincoln expressed satisfaction with the general's progress and actually encouraged him to continue his devastating march. Lincoln's support for these tactics revealed, again, just further willingness to use any means necessary to win the war, regardless of the cost to civilian population. His authorization of total war against southern civilians represented, again, just another shift

in American military doctrine from limited warfare between armies to unlimited warfare against entire societies. And the president's role in authorizing destruction of civilian infrastructure established, again, just a dangerous precedent. You know, and this president would be invoked repeatedly in future conflicts like we mentioned. Now, again, I don't want you to think I'm just sitting here bagging on old honest Dave. That is not the point, okay? You know, defenders of Lincoln's controversial actions often argue that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and the civil war is one of the most extraordinary moments in U.S. history. And, you know, you you know, by any means necessary, you need to preserve the union, and this justified the temporary

suspension of constitutional rights and a lot of democratic norms. This argument holds that Lincoln faced this unprecedented crisis that threatened the existence of the United States. He's in an impossible situation I couldn't even imagine, and that the conventional legal and constitutional constraints were inadequate to meet the emergency, right? I mean, that makes sense to me. Proponents of this view argue that Lincoln's primary obligation was to preserve the union at all costs. And that allowing the Confederacy to succeed would have resulted in far greater long-term harm to human freedom and a democratic government. They contend that the temporary suspension of civil liberties was a necessary sacrifice to

prevent the permanent destruction of American society. This is known often as the necessary evils argument. And this argument also suggests that Lincoln's controversial actions actually prevented greater bloodshed by shortening the war and deterring future rebellions. By demonstrating the federal government's willingness to use all available means to preserve the union, Lincoln, you could say, discouraged other potential secessions and helped establish the principle that the United States was an indissoluble union. And Lincoln's racial attitudes did genuinely evolve over the course of his presidency, influenced by his interactions with Frederick Douglass and other black leaders and his observation of black soldiers' courage during the Civil War. So by 1864, Lincoln was

privately supporting limited black suffrage for educated former slaves and black veterans, representing a significant departure from his 1858 position. The influence of advisors like Frederick Douglass, who met with Lincoln multiple times during the war, helped broaden the president's understanding of racial issues and the capabilities of black Americans. Lincoln's willingness to listen to these advisors and modify his views demonstrated a capacity for growth that I think distinguished him from many of his contemporaries. So by the time of his assassination in 1865, Lincoln was moving toward a more expansive vision of racial equality, though he never fully abandoned his belief in some fundamental racial differences. His final public speech delivered just days before his

death included an endorsement of limited black voting rights, suggesting that his views may have even continued to evolve further had he lived. So when evaluating Lincoln's actions, it's important to remember that he was operating within the context of 1860s America, where racial inequality was accepted by the vast majority of white Americans and democratic norms were less established than they were today. And compared to political leaders of his era, Lincoln's racial views, while objectionable by modern standards were pretty moderate if not progressive. The standards of the 1860s regarding executive power, civil liberties, and warfare were also different from modern expectations. Many of Lincoln's contemporaries, including some of his critics, accepted that wartime conditions might require extraordinary measures that would be unacceptable during peacetime.

However, it's also important to note that Lincoln's actions were controversial even by the standards of his own time. Chief Justice Taney, Congressional Democrat, and many Northern newspapers criticized his suspension of habeas corpus and the expansion of the executive power. And the fact that these actions were contested during Lincoln's own time, again, suggests that they cannot be dismissed simply as a product of the historical moment. So Lincoln's presidency obviously establishes three critical precedents that continue to shape the government to this day, the expansion of executive power during war, the suspension of civil liberties during a moment. emergency and the use of military force against civilians. These precedents have been invoked repeatedly by subsequent presidents to justify their own actions during times of crisis. And the precedent of wartime power has been particularly influential, with presidents from Wilson to Bush, citing Lincoln. The idea that presidents can act unilaterally during emergencies, bypass congressional

approval, and ignore judicial rulings has become deeply embedded in American political culture, even to this current president. And Lincoln's willingness to suspend civil liberties and target civilian population also, again, just establishes a template that future administrations would follow. Now, of course, I don't know if this is necessarily Lincoln's fault, but certainly it should be a part of his legacy in some capacity, that we could acknowledge all the good that he did, but also recognize that there were some things that did have bad downriver effects. Of course, the heroic narrative surrounding Lincoln has obscured the complex reality

of his presidency, and really it makes it difficult for Americans to grapple with the dangerous precedents that he may have established. By portraying Lincoln simply as a flawless moral leader that never did anything wrong, popular cultures made it easier for future presidents to claim his mantle while adopting his most problematic policies, right? I mean, you can imagine, you know, FDR being like, hey, Lincoln did it, so therefore it's good, when really we should just look at the behaviors in a vacuum and say, is interning a bunch of Japanese people good or not? Rather than just tying yourself to an incorruptible moral leader and saying, this guy did nothing wrong, so therefore anything that we do that he did is also fun.

This is the importance of nuanced historical understanding that cannot be, you know, in my opinion, overstated in a democracy where citizens have to evaluate the actions of their leaders, right? Like, it is our job to elect presidents and congresspeople, and ultimately, we have to evaluate their character. So when we mythologize historical figures, we lose the ability to learn from their mistakes and become, you know, more vulnerable in the future to the same types of abuses in our own time. So by understanding the full complexity of Lincoln and his presidency, both his amazing achievements and the phenomenal things that he did, but also his failures and the things that he could have done better, I think it's essential for maintaining any type of accountability and preventing the concentration of power into one specific. position or one specific branch of government. And only by honestly examining our own history can we hope to avoid repeating the same mistakes. So the historical record on Abraham Lincoln reveals a president who did very many great things, but also had some systemic violations of constitutional

rights and at one point some racist ideals and authoritarian policies that also has lasting consequences for American society. From, you know, explicit endorsement of white supremacy in 1858 to suspension of habeas corpus, mass execution of Dakota Warriors, you know, Lincoln's presidency established some dangerous precedence. And these controversial actions cannot be separated from Lincoln's genuine achievements to preserve the union and advancing the cause of emancipation. The same president who freed the slaves also put some people in prison without trial. Two things can be true.

And this is just the complexity of any historical figure, right? Lincoln's presidency demonstrates that even our greatest leaders can make bad decisions and, you know, they can contradict their own stated principles and harm the very people that they claim to serve just like all human beings ever. Just like you watching this could be a good person, but also do bad things. And this, again, is the danger of hero worship, is that it prevents us from learning from history's mistakes and creating an even better nation. So the most important lesson here is to examine the controversial actions and, you know, be vigilant when it comes to evaluating our own leaders today. Understanding the scope of Lincoln's presidency should make us more critical consumers of historical narratives and, you know, skeptical in general of leaders who claim that, you know, extraordinary circumstances justify extraordinary measures. We need to be scrutinizing not only of people in our own day, but also in history. Anyone that is perfectly infallible and has never done anything wrong needs to be scrutinized. And people that are only evil also need to.

be scrutinized. So I encourage you to dive into these topics even further, right? You know, read the Lincoln-Douglas debates, examine the military records from the Dakota War, study the constitutional question raised by Lincoln's expansion and the executive power, and only by engaging with the full record of history can we hope to learn from the past and build a more just future. But let me know what you think. I mean, did I miss anything? Is there anything here that was oversimplified? If you're a student of history or an ardent Abraham Lincoln follower, is there more nuance that I myself might even be missing? Please drop it in the comments. Erd, even if you agreed, I would love to know what you think, because there are elements of this

or Lincoln Story that you were not aware of, that you did not learn, you know, in AP American history. I read all the comments, YouTube, Spotify, so please drop them in there. I really appreciate everyone rocking with this new channel. I've been overwhelmed by the support. Thank you guys so much for watching, and I will see you all next week. Peace.