Did Lincoln Abhor Slavery? (poll)

Did Lincoln Abhor Slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 62.9%
  • No

    Votes: 20 32.3%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • Total voters
    62

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
David Hunter actually had two proclamations in which he freed slaves. Lincoln allowed the first one to stand because it was in compliance with the Confiscation Acts. He overturned the second one because Hunter, like Frémont before him, had gone beyond what the legislation had allowed. Frémont didn't change his order on his own. Lincoln wanted him to do so and Frémont refused unless Lincoln ordered him to change it, which Lincoln did.

The Union did have a formal emancipation policy from August 8, 1861 onward, and McClellan abided by it. Slaves who came into their lines were freed, especially after Congress ordered, with Lincoln's approval, military officers to stop returning fugitives to their owners, even if the owners were said to be loyal citizens.




Lincoln's preference was for gradual, compensated emancipation accompanied by voluntary colonization. He even was able to get Congress to appropriate funds for colonization, and a couple of experiments were carried out with disastrous results. The colonization program was a huge failure, primarily because most African Americans didn't want to go.




Johnson carried out his own program, not Lincoln's. It's easy to get the two confused because Lincoln wanted to be lenient, but Johnson didn't want any protections for African Americans in the South, whereas Lincoln would not have abandoned them like that.



Far more nuanced than most understand.
Well, in regards to the confiscation that was more of getting them to work (just like their Confederate counterparts) rather than properly freeing them outright and arming them some did do it but wouldn't become official policy until the Emancipation Proclamation came around.

Lincoln and Johnson wanted of course to take a conciliatory approach and you did point out a difference between the two, however the former was in favor of it yes but it applied to only two groups: wealthy educated free blacks and black Union soldiers if you were neither then it didn't apply you and he simply asked for at least 10 percent of each Southern state populace to pledge loyalty this was in contrast to the Radical Republican approach of disenfranchising anyone suspected of loyalty to the Confederacy and having a rather harsh approach towards the South.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
Johnson carried out his own program, not Lincoln's. It's easy to get the two confused because Lincoln wanted to be lenient, but Johnson didn't want any protections for African Americans in the South, whereas Lincoln would not have abandoned them like that.

No Johnson tried to implement Lincoln's plans for reconstruction...

But Johnson did not intend to punish the South. And while he did oversee the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution outlawing slavery (a process Lincoln had started), Johnson also believed on principle that each state had the right to decide the best course of Reconstruction for itself. He appointed governors to help the states take the steps outlined by Lincoln for readmission to the Union,

Johnson pardoned Confederate prisoners and allowed former officials and soldiers to take part in the new state governments (as Lincoln intended to do). As soon as they took the oath of allegiance, all of their property, except for slaves, was returned to them (including confiscated land that had been promised to freedmen), and they regained their full legal rights. Before long, even the Freedmen's Bureau was being restricted at the local level, keeping former slaves dependent on the plantations that used to own them.


He implemented Lincoln's plan and when it went awry. Congress did not try to work with him. No, they did not for Congress wanted a pound of flesh instead of a union once again.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/pr...to-continue-lincolns-reconstruction-plan.html
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
Well, in regards to the confiscation that was more of getting them to work (just like their Confederate counterparts) rather than properly freeing them outright and arming them some did do it but wouldn't become official policy until the Emancipation Proclamation came around.

Actually it was about freeing them outright. That's what the Lincoln Administration's policy was as of August 8, 1861. Now, they would then put them to work, but they were used as free labor, with wages supposed to be paid to them. In some cases, due to oversights, wages weren't immediately paid, but administration policy was that they were to be paid.

Correct that Lincoln didn't authorize enlisting African Americans until the Final EP.

Lincoln and Johnson wanted of course to take a conciliatory approach and you did point out a difference between the two, however the former was in favor of it yes but it applied to only two groups: wealthy educated free blacks and black Union soldiers if you were neither then it didn't apply you

You're conflating his support for voting rights ["the very intelligent" and those who had served in the Union army] with having basic civil rights beyond voting. Lincoln was in favor of basic civil rights, and a limited franchise.

and he simply asked for at least 10 percent of each Southern state populace to pledge loyalty this was in contrast to the Radical Republican approach of disenfranchising anyone suspected of loyalty to the Confederacy and having a rather harsh approach towards the South.

Lincoln's 10 percent plan, as you say, was 10% of the 1860 voting population taking the loyalty oath.

A harsh policy against "the South" was not a Radical Republican position. That's not to say some Radical Republicans didn't hold that position, but the only things one could say were true Radical Republican positions were ending slavery and equal rights for blacks. Radicals were all over the map on other issues. The Wade-Davis Bill had the "Ironclad" oath in it, in which a person had to swear they had never supported the rebellion, but Lincoln had pocket-vetoed that bill. The Ironclad Oath would appear again in several proposals, but nationally, even under the Reconstruction Acts, it didn't become a policy. Some states did implement it, or something like it, though.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
No Johnson tried to implement Lincoln's plans for reconstruction...

But Johnson did not intend to punish the South. And while he did oversee the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution outlawing slavery (a process Lincoln had started), Johnson also believed on principle that each state had the right to decide the best course of Reconstruction for itself. He appointed governors to help the states take the steps outlined by Lincoln for readmission to the Union,

Johnson pardoned Confederate prisoners and allowed former officials and soldiers to take part in the new state governments (as Lincoln intended to do). As soon as they took the oath of allegiance, all of their property, except for slaves, was returned to them (including confiscated land that had been promised to freedmen), and they regained their full legal rights. Before long, even the Freedmen's Bureau was being restricted at the local level, keeping former slaves dependent on the plantations that used to own them.


He implemented Lincoln's plan and when it went awry. Congress did not try to work with him. No, they did not for Congress wanted a pound of flesh instead of a union once again.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/pr...to-continue-lincolns-reconstruction-plan.html

You're confusing the two. It's easy to do. It wasn't Lincoln's plan, though it was very close. Lincoln would not abandon the freed people the way Johnson did. Lincoln would not have sat still for the re-enslavement under a different name that Johnson would accept.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
Actually it was about freeing them outright. That's what the Lincoln Administration's policy was as of August 8, 1861. Now, they would then put them to work, but they were used as free labor, with wages supposed to be paid to them. In some cases, due to oversights, wages weren't immediately paid, but administration policy was that they were to be paid.

Correct that Lincoln didn't authorize enlisting African Americans until the Final EP.



You're conflating his support for voting rights ["the very intelligent" and those who had served in the Union army] with having basic civil rights beyond voting. Lincoln was in favor of basic civil rights, and a limited franchise.



Lincoln's 10 percent plan, as you say, was 10% of the 1860 voting population taking the loyalty oath.

A harsh policy against "the South" was not a Radical Republican position. That's not to say some Radical Republicans didn't hold that position, but the only things one could say were true Radical Republican positions were ending slavery and equal rights for blacks. Radicals were all over the map on other issues. The Wade-Davis Bill had the "Ironclad" oath in it, in which a person had to swear they had never supported the rebellion, but Lincoln had pocket-vetoed that bill. The Ironclad Oath would appear again in several proposals, but nationally, even under the Reconstruction Acts, it didn't become a policy. Some states did implement it, or something like it, though.
Well like I said it's pretty complicated.
 

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
It is complicated and it doesn't help that Lincoln tried out ideas to see what was popular and what was not. He was also open to using other people's ideas if they showed promise like Butler's "contraband" argument. My guess is that he would have let different states experiment with different plans for blacks after the war to see how they would work out.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
Lincoln's plan, though it was very close. Lincoln would not abandon the freed people the way Johnson did. Lincoln would not have sat still for the re-enslavement under a different name that Johnson would accept.

You assume Lincoln would not have abandoned freedmen or not all allow the freedmen to be put under foot again... He may not have allow suffage for freedmen. We will never know...
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
You assume Lincoln would not have abandoned freedmen or not all allow the freedmen to be put under foot again... He may not have allow suffage for freedmen. We will never know...

He said he wanted suffrage publicly, so he would work for that. He wouldn't abandon the USCT, who had fought to preserve the Union. That wasn't in his makeup.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Location
Central Florida
He said he wanted suffrage publicly, so he would work for that. He wouldn't abandon the USCT, who had fought to preserve the Union. That wasn't in his makeup.

I agree he would haved worked to get the USCT soldiers the right to vote and educated freedmen too but I do not think he would have wanted or fought for black suffage...
 

TracyM61

Corporal
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Abhor is a strong word. I think we have to remember that Lincoln was a moderate. While I doubt Lincoln, if given the chance, would have ever owned slaves, IMHO I believe he understood the delicate situation it presented to the nation. He was not in favor of a radical change in slavery, but rather a slow, uncoerced progression of its demise.

"From the time he had first spoken out against the extension of slavery into the territories in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln had insisted that while the spread of slavery must be 'fairly headed off,' he had no wish 'to interfere with slavery' where it already existed. So long as the institution was contained, which Lincoln considered a sacred pledge, it was 'in course of ultimate extinction.'" Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals, pg. 224
 
Last edited:

damYankee

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
It is complicated and it doesn't help that Lincoln tried out ideas to see what was popular and what was not. He was also open to using other people's ideas if they showed promise like Butler's "contraband" argument. My guess is that he woul have let different states experiment with different plans for blacks after the war to see how they would work out.

Lincoln was a politician, Garrison and other Abolitionist “radicals” could afford to be staunchly anti slavery and unwavering in speaking out and demanding an all out end AKA Abolishment of slavery regardless of the political ramifications.
Lincoln didn’t have that luxury. In order to get elected as president he had to appeal to a broader base. After getting elected he had to deal with a divided Congress.
The Secessionist shot themselves in the head when they succeeded. Lincoln no longer had to worry about Southern elected representatives in either house, the South surrendered the best chance they had of continuing slavery by leaving the Union.
They forfeited all legal and constitutional rights to negotiate and bargain and compromise.
It was the Radicals in the Secessionist Movement that lost, and we are better for it.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
I agree he would haved worked to get the USCT soldiers the right to vote and educated freedmen too but I do not think he would have wanted or fought for black suffage...

Lincoln moved from no franchise at all to a limited franchise in just two years after African Americans began fighting. Actually, less than that if we consider his 1864 letter to Governor Hahn. He was moving toward full suffrage for all black males, and nothing was going to stop him.
 

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
President Lincoln’s thinking was revealed in a letter he wrote General James A. Wadsworth, an abolitionist Republican from New York, in early January 1864:

You desire to know, in the event of our complete success in the field, the same being followed by a loyal and cheerful submission on the part of the South, if universal amnesty should not be accompanied with universal suffrage.

Now, since you know my private inclinations as to what terms should be granted to the South in the contingency mentioned, I will here add, that if our success should thus be realized, followed by such desired results, I cannot see, if universal amnesty is granted, how, under the circumstances, I can avoid exacting in return universal suffrage, or, at least, suffrage on the basis of intelligence and military service.

How to better the condition of the colored race has long been a study which has attracted my serious and careful attention; hence I think I am clear and decided as to what course I shall pursue in the premises, regarding it a religious duty, as the nation’s guardian of these people, who have so heroically vindicated their manhood on the battle-field, where, in assisting to save the life of the Republic, they have demonstrated in blood their right to the ballot, which is but the humane protection of the flag they have so fearlessly defended.

The restoration of the Rebel States to the Union must rest upon the principle of civil and political equality of both races; and it must be sealed by general amnesty.2
 
Top