"Hypocrite Abe"

[Copperhead-mi]

On the What Accounts for the Explosion of Civil War Films thread member E_just_E made the comment that "if Lincoln fought the war after '63 to 'free the slaves', he would had been known as 'hypocrite Abe'," with further comment to follow up questions that Lincoln "did not free the slaves in places he could have done it right away like MD and DE" and he could have done so "under the same authority that created the 13th amendment when no States were in rebellion." Well at this point I can only say that it is common CW101 that from the start of the war the Lincoln administration's strategy was that of restoring the Union basically to its pre-secession status quo. Until January 1, 1863, he was quite willing to let bygones be bygones and let the Southern States re-enter the flock with slavery and pretty much everything else untouched.

Following Union military setbacks and the failure of Southern Unionists to rise up Lincoln decided during mid-1862 to change the Union's strategy to that of hard war which included the destruction of enemy property and the emancipation of the Confederacy's slaves. On Dec. 1, 1862, one month before the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln stated to the Congress that "[w]ithout slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue." Lincoln as president had no authority to emancipate but as a commander-in-chief of a recognized belligerent he had the war power to deprive the enemy of any property and resource that aided its fight against the United States. Hence, the emancipation of the enemy's slaves in any area still in active rebellion. Now, not so fast says E_just_E. This makes Lincoln a "hypocrite" since he could have freed the slaves in the slave states remaining in the Union by simply using the same authority that later created the 13th Amendment. Really!, I say. What authority exactly was that and I'm curious how this could have been accomplished?

 

[John Winn]

Lincoln always said he didn't have the authority to free the slaves. The proclamation was a war act so was limited in scope. Also, many questioned his authority to do that much and it was uncertain what would happen when the war was over. Had he attempted to free slaves in Union states he'd likely have lost at least Kentucky (which did not give up its slaves until the 13th).

The war powers of the president weren't clearly established then so a lot of what Lincoln's administration did could be argued not to have been legal (and was at the time and even now). I don't think, though, that he was a hypocrite. He just felt that depriving the enemy of his property that supported the rebellion was within his powers and needed to be done to win. He never deviated from his stance that only the states could free their slaves, although he of course did support and push for the 13th.

 

[E_just_E]

What authority exactly was that and I'm curious how this could have been accomplished?

The authority of the President of the United States.

How could be accomplished? Work with the Senate to draft a constitutional amendment and have it go through the Senate and House and be ratified by the States, like the 13th Amendment did. If someone wanted to free the Slaves in the Union States, it could had happen. It could also be political suicide, which is the reason it did not... Or the Senate or the House or the States might not want to pass it, which would mean that the War, as far as the Union side was concerned, was not about Slavery but about preserving the Union (which is how this argument started)

Food for thought: One cannot make a State-based moral argument about Slavery. Slavery is equally evil and despicable in Richmond, in Charleston, in Baltimore and in Washington. Saying that it is not, is a. a political and not a moral argument and b. Objectifies slaves by treating them like privileges or entitlements that can be taken away if their owners do not behave...

You also fail to provide context unfortunately, my statement was that if Lincoln ever said that the War from his perspective was to free the slaves and not to preserve the Union, he should be called hypocrite Abe instead of honest Abe. But he did not say that; he actually said exactly the opposite:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

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.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

 

[Sid J.]

On the What Accounts for the Explosion of Civil War Films thread member E_just_E made the comment that "if Lincoln fought the war after '63 to 'free the slaves', he would had been known as 'hypocrite Abe'," with further comment to follow up questions that Lincoln "did not free the slaves in places he could have done it right away like MD and DE" and he could have done so "under the same authority that created the 13th amendment when no States were in rebellion." Well at this point I can only say that it is common CW101 that from the start of the war the Lincoln administration's strategy was that of restoring the Union basically to its pre-secession status quo. Until January 1, 1863, he was quite willing to let bygones be bygones and let the Southern States re-enter the flock with slavery and pretty much everything else untouched.

Following Union military setbacks and the failure of Southern Unionists to rise up Lincoln decided during mid-1862 to change the Union's strategy to that of hard war which included the destruction of enemy property and the emancipation of the Confederacy's slaves. On Dec. 1, 1862, one month before the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln stated to the Congress that "[w]ithout slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue." Lincoln as president had no authority to emancipate but as a commander-in-chief of a recognized belligerent he had the war power to deprive the enemy of any property and resource that aided its fight against the United States. Hence, the emancipation of the enemy's slaves in any area still in active rebellion. Now, not so fast says E_just_E. This makes Lincoln a "hypocrite" since he could have freed the slaves in the slave states remaining in the Union by simply using the same authority that later created the 13th Amendment. Really!, I say. What authority exactly was that and I'm curious how this could have been accomplished?

It shouldn't be ignored that Lincoln supported the DC emancipation act as well similar compensated emancipation acts in the border states. That these failed to pass at the state level disproves rather than supports the "hypocrite Abe" thesis.

 

[Sid J.]

The authority of the President of the United States.

How could be accomplished? Work with the Senate to draft a constitutional amendment and have it go through the Senate and House and be ratified by the States, like the 13th Amendment did. If someone wanted to free the Slaves in the Union States, it could had happen. It could also be political suicide, which is the reason it did not... Or the Senate or the House or the States might not want to pass it, which would mean that the War, as far as the Union side was concerned, was not about Slavery but about preserving the Union (which is how this argument started)

Food for thought: One cannot make a State-based moral argument about Slavery. Slavery is equally evil and despicable in Richmond, in Charleston, in Baltimore and in Washington. Saying that it is not, is a. a political and not a moral argument and b. Objectifies slaves by treating them like privileges or entitlements that can be taken away if their owners do not behave...

You also fail to provide context unfortunately, my statement was that if Lincoln ever said that the War from his perspective was to free the slaves and not to preserve the Union, he should be called hypocrite Abe instead of honest Abe. But he did not say that; he actually said exactly the opposite:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

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.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

I should note that Lincoln's ultimate choice was door #2: saving the Union by freeing all the slaves.

 

[E_just_E]

, not so fast says E_just_E. This makes Lincoln a "hypocrite" since he could have freed the slaves in the slave states remaining in the Union by simply using the same authority that later created the 13th Amendment.

You are actually misrepresenting the context and what I said

Here is (a reply to what I said that was actually deleted) the original link:

"If Lincoln fought the war after '63 to "free the slaves", he would had been known as "hypocrite Abe"

So the hypocrite part is about the reason of the war from the Union side, not about freeing the slaves...

 

[E_just_E]

I should note that Lincoln's ultimate choice was door #2: saving the Union by freeing all the slaves.

Based on? Again, in his own words:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery

 

[ole]

Someone doesn't understand the Constitution. The president cannot say slavery is bad and abolish it with a pen and a phone. (Telegraph?) At the time, executive orders were unheard of. Lincoln, no matter what some might say, stuck with the letter of the law as he saw it.

 

[dlofting]

Based on? Again, in his own words:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery

I interpret this as Lincoln's "official" position or what he was "required" to do as the President of the United States.....what he would also do, if it was within his power, is expressed in the final sentence of his letter.

 

[NedBaldwin]

This statement, made in reply to me in the other thread, shows complete ignorance of what the President had authority to do:
"Because he did not free the slaves in places he could have done it right away like MD and DE."

I'm not sure it is worth continuing a discussion on this topic if the grasp of fundamentals are so wrong.

 

[Sid J.]

Based on? Again, in his own words:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery

This is another area where lost-causers, neo-confederates and other charlatans (and I am certainly not saying you are of those E_just_E) have ran their BS machines at such volume and for such time as to have distorted Lincolns words.

"Saving the Union" from Lincolns perspective as POTUS was not hypocrisy, it was a Constitutional requirement.

"Freeing the Slaves", while something Lincoln personally supported, was, from Lincolns perspective as POTUS, Constitutionally very limited. Nonetheless, within those limits, he was very active.

As president Lincoln acted to eliminate slavery in those areas, DC and the Territories, where there was Federal jurisdiction. He supported state level efforts for compensated emancipation. Absent the war, these together, in the long run, if successful, would eventually provide the votes for a Constitutional Amendment banning slavery, perhaps long after Lincolns term(s) as president expired.

Lincoln's paramount object in the war was to save the Union. Yes, always. Lincoln's paramount object as regards to slavery was to eliminate it. Yes, always. There is no hypocrisy here.

The lost cause BS machine usually speaks to timing. As to 1862 when Lincoln still held out hope that the war would come to a speedy conclusion, and he also knew that the only way to accomplish this was to limit objectives, in the short term, in regards to slavery. The contention that one who chooses to wait on achieving his ultimate goal is a hypocrite is wholly incorrect.

If I wanted to buy a house, but choose to wait until I had paid off my student loan to do so, would that make me a hypocrite in regards to property ownership? Absolutely not. Unless one buys into the lost cause BS machine argument, then I am a total hypocrite for not buying a house immediately on the exact moment I decide I want one. That is the standard applied to Lincoln in your argument, and sorry to be so long winded, wish I could have been as brief as Ned in #10.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

The authority of the President of the United States.

How could be accomplished? Work with the Senate to draft a constitutional amendment and have it go through the Senate and House and be ratified by the States, like the 13th Amendment did. If someone wanted to free the Slaves in the Union States, it could had happen. It could also be political suicide, which is the reason it did not... Or the Senate or the House or the States might not want to pass it, which would mean that the War, as far as the Union side was concerned, was not about Slavery but about preserving the Union (which is how this argument started)<snipped for brevity>

I am totally lost in your criticism of Lincoln. Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall that Lincoln worked with the both houses of Congress, and the Senate passed the 13th Amendment in April, 1864 just a little more than a year after the Emancipation Proclamation and the House passed it in January 1865, two years after the E.P. had been issued. Had Lincoln not issued the E.P. when he did, how much longer would the War have continued since the majority of our USCT's were the result of that Proclamation.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Based on? Again, in his own words:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery

Even before Greely's Editorial, Lincoln had already decided that emancipation would have to be an integral part of any war winning policy, i.e., to save the Union by winning the war, emancipation would have to be necessary. But, he was not going to march to anyone's orders except his own, i.e., it would be issued at a time of his(Not Greely's) choosing, to maximize its effect,

As already noted on this thread, After 1862, Emancipation and Reunion were inseparably intertwined and Lincoln refused all thoughts of separating the two, even as the price for Reunion, i.e., to him you could Not have the one without the other.


P.S. In fact, the main reason Lincoln refused to separate Reunion from Emancipation, was A Moral reason. That his issuing the Proclamation had been a promise by himself in the name of the United States, and was bound by Honor(his own and that of the United States') to see it accomplished.

 

[E_just_E]

I am totally lost in your criticism of Lincoln. Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall that Lincoln worked with the both houses of Congress, and the Senate passed the 13th Amendment in April, 1864 just a little more than a year after the Emancipation Proclamation and the House passed it in January 1865, two years after the E.P. had been issued. Had Lincoln not issued the E.P. when he did, how much longer would the War have continued since the majority of our USCT's were the result of that Proclamation.

I am not critical of Lincoln. I am critical of the premise that Lincoln's (and the Union's) reason to fighting the war was to free the Slaves and not (or in addition to) saving the Union. And my argument is, if it that were the case he should be called hypocrite, because a. he did not do enough to free the slaves in his the Union states (like what you are saying up there) when the war started or soon after the war started and b. he said it in his own words. Thus, the war from the union perspective was to save the Union and the slave issue was secondary and of importance to some people only.

Not about Lincoln, about the reason Union was fighting...

 

[Allie]

This seems like a silly argument since it's based on a statement which said IF he had done something which he did not do he WOULD HAVE BEEN a hypocrite. Regardless of the merits of his other arguments, E did not call Lincoln a hypocrite, so asking him to defend that statement represents a misunderstanding.

 

[OpnCoronet]

I am not critical of Lincoln. I am critical of the premise that Lincoln's (and the Union's) reason to fighting the war was to free the Slaves and not (or in addition to) saving the Union. And my argument is, if it that were the case he should be called hypocrite, because a. he did not do enough to free the slaves in his the Union states (like what you are saying up there) when the war started or soon after the war started and b. he said it in his own words. Thus, the war from the union perspective was to save the Union and the slave issue was secondary and of importance to some people only.

Not about Lincoln, about the reason Union was fighting...

Once Again, After 1862,Emancipation was Not 'in addition to' Reunion. It was an integral part of why and for what, the Union was fighting the War in the first place..
As I have previously said, To Lincoln there was no division, you could not have one without the other.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

This seems like a silly argument since it's based on a statement which said IF he had done something which he did not do he WOULD HAVE BEEN a hypocrite. Regardless of the merits of his other arguments, E did not call Lincoln a hypocrite, so asking him to defend that statement represents a misunderstanding.

He clearly posted that the Union did not go to war to free the slaves and had Lincoln done so after '63 he would have been a hypocrite. My comments have been based on that premise. To further muddy the water he suggested that Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in the Confederacy but should have instead freed them in Delaware and Maryland as was done later under the 13th Amendment.

 

[E_just_E]

As I have previously said, To Lincoln there was no division, you could not have one without the other.

I know what you said and I know what Lincoln said. Do you have any sources to support your argument? Do you have any quotes from Lincoln saying what you said he said? I posted one up there supporting my opinion...

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I am not critical of Lincoln. I am critical of the premise that Lincoln's (and the Union's) reason to fighting the war was to free the Slaves and not (or in addition to) saving the Union. And my argument is, if it that were the case he should be called hypocrite, because a. he did not do enough to free the slaves in his the Union states (like what you are saying up there) when the war started or soon after the war started and b. he said it in his own words. Thus, the war from the union perspective was to save the Union and the slave issue was secondary and of importance to some people only.

Not about Lincoln, about the reason Union was fighting...

I took your original comment (which I cannot now find) on the other thread that the Union fighting the War had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[E_just_E]

I took your original comment (which I cannot now find) on the other thread that the Union fighting the War had nothing to do with slavery.

It had something to do with slavery but was not the main reason. The excuse for secession and the formation of confederacy was expansion of slavery to the Western territories. If there was no secession, there would be no war, and per Lincoln's own words to Alexander Stephens there would still be slaves:

To Alexander H. Stephens
For your own eyes only.
Springfield, Ill.

Dec. 22, 1860

Hon. A. H. Stephens--

My dear Sir

Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. Yours very truly

A. Lincoln