"Hypocrite Abe"

[brass napoleon]

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

You are completely ignoring that last paragraph, which becomes particularly important in light of what Lincoln said over, and over, and over again: that stopping the expansion of slavery would put it "on the course of ultimate extinction". Here's just one example of when he said that:

"I say, in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind rested in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. I say when this Government was first established, it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the new Territories of the United States, where it had not existed. But Judge Douglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upon a new basis, by which it is to become national and perpetual. All I have asked or desired anywhere is that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of our Government originally placed it upon. I have no doubt that it would become extinct, for all time to come, if we but readopted the policy of the fathers, by restricting it to the limits it has already covered,-restricting it from the new Territories."

- Abraham Lincoln, Jonesboro, Illinois, September 15, 1858:

Source: http://www.bartleby.com/251/32.html
​

So "there would still be slaves", but only for a while, because slavery would be "on the course of ultimate extinction". And if Lincoln really didn't care about slavery, all he had to do was agree with Alexander Stephens on that one issue he said was "the only substantial difference between us". All he had to do was agree that slavery was right, and allow it to expand, and the Union would have been preserved without a drop of blood being shed. But at no time, not for one instant, did he ever consider that.

Lincoln didn't believe that federal emancipation of the slaves was necessary to end slavery, because if the Southern states returned to a Union where the spread of slavery was prohibited, it would die out anyway. The Emancipation Proclamation was strictly a military measure that was 100% compatible with his long-term goal of putting slavery "on the course of ultimate extinction".

 

[OpnCoronet]

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...

You do not know Lincoln's ltr to James Conkling, Aug. 26, 1863?(most students of the CW do or at least, Should)

 

[E_just_E]

You do not know Lincoln's ltr to James Conkling, Aug. 26, 1863?(most students of the CW do or at least, Should)

Here. Please point to a passage that says that the war is not to preserve the Union, but to free the slaves, as you argue.
Thank you.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Here. Please point to a passage that says that the war is not to preserve the Union, but to free the slaves, as you argue.
Thank you.

He says he will not retract the Emancipation Proclamation and thus remains a part of the Lincoln's price for Reunion, i.e., not just reunion ,but, Reunion With Emancipation.
Many other csa apologists bandy words, i.e., secession is not illegal because the Constitution does not specifically refer to secession. ***Edited by moderator jgoodguy*** reason personal attack removed.

 

[E_just_E]

He says he will not retract the Emancipation Proclamation and thus remains a part of the Lincoln's price for Reunion, i.e., not just reunion ,but, Reunion With Emancipation.
Like many other csa apologists you bandy words, i.e., secession is not illegal because the Constitution does not specifically refer to secession.

Please do not call me that. I am not by any means

And this has nothing to do with secessation or the CSA. It has to do with the reason the Union was fighting the war, which, in Lincoln's words, was to preserve the union and not to free the slaves.

 

[cash]

Prior to January 1, 1863, Lincoln had only one prerequisite for peace: Union. The rebels needed to only lay down their arms and comply with US Law.

After January 1, 1863, Lincoln had two prerequisites for peace: Union and slavery ended in the confederate states.

This was after the end of slavery in the District of Columbia. This was after the end of slavery in the territories. This was after the order to Federal soldiers that they were to no longer return fugitive slaves to their owners. This was after the Emancipation Proclamation which made the Union Army an army of freedom wherever it marched.

The Emancipation Proclamation fundamentally changed the war from a war solely for Union to a war for Union and the end of slavery. Two loyal slave states saw the writing on the wall, and they abolished slavery before the end of the war. The 13th Amendment passed Congress during the war.

Edit to add: Union was still his primary goal.

 

[E_just_E]

Prior to January 1, 1863, Lincoln had only one prerequisite for peace: Union. The rebels needed to only lay down their arms and comply with US Law.

After January 1, 1863, Lincoln had two prerequisites for peace: Union and slavery ended in the confederate states.

This was after the end of slavery in the District of Columbia. This was after the end of slavery in the territories. This was after the order to Federal soldiers that they were to no longer return fugitive slaves to their owners. This was after the Emancipation Proclamation which made the Union Army an army of freedom wherever it marched.

The Emancipation Proclamation fundamentally changed the war from a war solely for Union to a war for Union and the end of slavery. Two loyal slave states saw the writing on the wall, and they abolished slavery before the end of the war. The 13th Amendment passed Congress during the war.

Not disagreeing with that. The goal of ending slavery was, though, secondary and not shared among all Union people, including the ones who were fighting. It had a lot to do with the draft riots in PA, NY, OH, IN, and the solidification of the Copperhead movement as well. In other words, saying that the Union fought to end the slavery (which is the secondary goal, at best, of the Union leaders, and not a goal at all until 3 years into the war and a goal that was not unanimously acceptable up North) is at least incomplete, if not revisionist and, likely, politically motivated.

 

[cash]

Not disagreeing with that. The goal of ending slavery was, though, secondary and not shared among all Union people, including the ones who were fighting. It had a lot to do with the draft riots in PA, NY, OH, IN, and the solidification of the Copperhead movement as well. In other words, saying that the Union fought to end the slavery (which is the secondary goal, at best, of the Union leaders, and not a goal at all until 3 years into the war and a goal that was not unanimously acceptable up North) is at least incomplete, if not revisionist and, likely, politically motivated.

It was a secondary goal, and it wasn't shared among all the Union people. I agree with that.
It was added just under two years into the war, not three years, though. And because Lincoln as commander-in-chief set the war objectives, when Lincoln determined that ending slavery was a war goal it became part of what the Union was fighting for, no matter who agreed or disagreed with it, even though it was a secondary goal.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

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.

As the lawyer he was, I agree. But if you want a brain tease, IMO, "Lincoln Reconsidered" is an excellent read.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Also, are we forgetting that Lincoln was a politician? In the course I took, from a very knowledgeable man, Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery when he took office. A few times, IMHO, and my professor's, he told the North what they wanted to hear. Now I greatly admire Abe, so not trying to pick a fight!

 

[brass napoleon]

Also, are we forgetting that Lincoln was a politician? In the course I took, from a very knowledgeable man, Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery when he took office. A few times, IMHO, and my professor's, he told the North what they wanted to hear. Now I greatly admire Abe, so not trying to pick a fight!

Did this "very knowledgeable man" provide any evidence to support his claim? Lincoln had been speaking out passionately against slavery for years prior to his election as President. If the North so much wanted to hear it, what evidence is there that Lincoln himself didn't share that view?

If you're concerned that his public statements were just there for show, then let's take a look at a private statement. Here's an excerpt from a private letter that he wrote to a slaveholding friend in 1855:

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union.

I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must."

- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Joshua Speed, August 24, 1855

Source: <http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm​

 

[cash]

Also, are we forgetting that Lincoln was a politician? In the course I took, from a very knowledgeable man, Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery when he took office. A few times, IMHO, and my professor's, he told the North what they wanted to hear. Now I greatly admire Abe, so not trying to pick a fight!

If your professor made that claim, then he has no honesty.

 

[Pat Young]

It was a secondary goal, and it wasn't shared among all the Union people. I agree with that.
It was added just under two years into the war, not three years, though. And because Lincoln as commander-in-chief set the war objectives, when Lincoln determined that ending slavery was a war goal it became part of what the Union was fighting for, no matter who agreed or disagreed with it, even though it was a secondary goal.

You could as easily say that for many Union soldiers, Union was a secondary goal and ending slavery was the primary goal.

 

[OpnCoronet]

And this has nothing to do with secessation or the CSA. It has to do with the reason the Union was fighting the war, which, in Lincoln's words, was to preserve the union and not to free the slaves.

What about that proves Lincoln was a hypocrite? He had already told Border State leaders, that the war itself would destroy slavery.

In any case, Emancipation can only be seen as secondary only by strictly avoiding seeing anything other than its later addition to the original goal, after the war had already begun. But, in historical terms, it was not secondary, it was integral to achieving the goal of Reunion, as the element necessary to winning the war and achieving Reunion. i.e., In Lincoln's considered estimation, a successful conclusion to the War would be Reunion, But, that successful conclusion would be impossible ,without Emancipation, they were integral; one could not be achieved without the other.

 

[cash]

What about that proves Lincoln was a hypocrite? He had already told Border State leaders, that the war itself would destroy slavery.

In any case, Emancipation can only be seen as secondary only by strictly avoiding seeing anything other than its later addition to the original goal, after the war had already begun. But, in historical terms, it was not secondary, it was integral to achieving the goal of Reunion, as the element necessary to winning the war and achieving Reunion. i.e., In Lincoln's considered estimation, a successful conclusion to the War would be Reunion, But, that successful conclusion would be impossible ,without Emancipation, they were integral; one could not be achieved without the other.

I agree with this insofar as it refers to emancipation in the seceded states. However, if we're talking about the destruction of slavery itself in the United States, that means the 13th Amendment.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

If your professor made that claim, then he has no honesty.

Whom? The professor, or Abe? I have stated, cash, IMO---and he DID have references! I also said I didn't want to pick a fight...why must YOU?

 

[rhettbutler1865]

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.

Please show that to cash--

 

[cash]

Whom? The professor, or Abe? I have stated, cash, IMO---and he DID have references! I also said I didn't want to pick a fight...why must YOU?

If your professor said that about Lincoln, then your professor is a dishonest fraud. Is that clear enough?

 

[cash]

Please show that to cash--

Before he does that, you should read it and compare it to what your "professor" said.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

If your professor said that about Lincoln, then your professor is a dishonest fraud. Is that clear enough?

WOW! You are....For the 1st time since joining, I guess I'll have to ignore your bitter remarks!