Posted on 07/26/2006 3:22:50 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - July 19, 2006 - A University of Illinois researcher had discovered a fourth copy of a rare letter Abraham Lincoln had written by to the nation's governors in 1861.
The letter John Lupton found Tuesday in the Lehigh County Historical Society's holdings was one Lincoln wrote as part of an unsuccessful ratification process for a constitutional amendment Congress adopted during the term of his predecessor, President James Buchanan, that would have made slavery the law of the land.
The president remembered for abolishing slavery had been willing to push the amendment as "kind of a carrot to the Southern states" if that would preserve the union, said Lupton, associate director of the Papers of Abraham Lincoln Project of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
"But even by that point, it was too late. By that time, the Southern states felt Lincoln's election was an affront," Lupton said. In fact, the letter discovered in Allentown was addressed to "His Excellency the Governor of the State of Florida," which had seceded from the union two months earlier.
Until Tuesday, only three of the letters were known to have survived. "It's a very cool document," Lupton said.
Joseph Garrera, the historical society director, said he will consult with the society's board to determine the best way to display the document and try to figure out exactly who donated the letter.
This 1861 letter from President Abraham Lincoln contains a request of support from the governor of Florida for a constitutional amendment on slavery.
John A. Lupton, associate director/editor of "The Papers of Abraham Lincoln", a project of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, looks over an 1861 letter from President Lincoln in the archives of the Lehigh County Historical Society Tuesday.
'Ol Dixie ping
Lincoln's letter is dated March 16, 1861.
Thanks for the Ping
another thing you might like to see.
Was Lincoln trying to negotiate or appear to make concessions?
Any statesman of the day would consider Florida a minor player to negotiate with, due to its smaller population.
"Any statesman of the day would consider Florida a minor player to negotiate with, due to its smaller population."
Unless you consider the fact that that would give the Army a 2 pronged approach into the Confederacy if and when his negotiations succeeded.
The South was already stretched thin to defend what they had across one border. Open another and you've got the makings of a quick disaster.
Especially being outnumbered what? 3 to 1?
Very interesting!
Good point, but were Union military planners on the ball that much in March 1861. I'm not that familiar with Cameron, but I know McDowell wasn't forward thinking, as he showed at 1st Manassas.
Could it be that once a party breaks the terms of a contract, as Washington did, it behooves the other party to remove himself from the transaction. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
What was the exact date in 1861?
Ah, just saw it.
If the south was a company perhaps but not without legal recourse or attempting to reach some sort of solution in the court system.
Here Lincoln made an offer, the South's reaction, pull out, shoot first and hope that no one shoots back.
The Southern Democrats refused to act as adults.
free dixie,sw
First of all, according to the dates, the South had already pulled out. Secondly, the South shot first justifiably. Thirdly, why would the South hope that no one shoots back? Of course they shoot back. Or don't they in your world? PC world?
somebody mumble something about Lincoln that they can't prove?
Debunks the claim slavery was the root cause of the war.
Lincon's own words time and again have debunked that claim, so far as the Union was concerned. For the South, what was there in the Corwin amndment to attract them? The amendment only protected where it existed, it did nothing to protect slavery being introduced into the territories. By the time it was introduced the southern states had already seceded and adopted a constitution that not only protected slavery where it existed but ensured that any future territories acquired would be slave and also protected slave imports to boot. So why in earth would they rejoin the Union and accept half a loaf?
No, it doesn't. It proves that the southern democrats were willing to fight to keep what Lincoln was willing to give them LEGALLY.
Like the world's oldest profession, Man's oldest possession wasn't legal by any legal means in the United States Constitution, those references that hinted at it, were vague enough to pass the wink and a nod test for either side of the issue.
Lincoln would have changed that with an amendment legalizing slavery where it existed already. The South decided that it could maintain slavery by secession without having to go through the legal process of changing the Constitution and putting the issue of legalizing slavery to a national vote.
They decided to risk all their lives and fortunes on a war between the states rather then have an open debate on slavery.
The story mentions letters, not a single letter. It's likely that Lincoln wrote similar letters to all the southern governors, and this one is only one of them.
At the time hostilities had not broken out so it's doubtful that anyone was planning anything about two fronts.
What terms did Washington break?
Slavery was already legal. What this amendment would not have done, and which the South was not willing to accept, was ensure that slavery could expand to the territories. Without that protection the South wasn't interested.
It was tolerated, like bawdy houses and such things but it wasn't legal in that it was defined by law.
I've challenged any number of these confederbees to prove that slavery was legally defined by the US government, feel free to prove me wrong by showing a law that defines what a slave is how one becomes a slave, and what crimes a person would have to commit to be enslaved?
OK, let me rephrase it. It was not prevented by the Constitution.
I've challenged any number of these confederbees to prove that slavery was legally defined by the US government, feel free to prove me wrong by showing a law that defines what a slave is how one becomes a slave, and what crimes a person would have to commit to be enslaved?
The legality of slavery was upheld by any number of Supreme Court decisions, including the Taney court in every chance it got. The most famous example, of course was Scott v Sanford.
btw, are you trying to REPLACE "Mr SPIN" as the "class clown" & BUTT of jokes on FR???
lincoln, the TYRANT, was a stone RACIST & particularly an ANTI-Indian bigot.
he hated & feared ALL "persons of colour", Catholics, Jews,Asians, Latinos & "muddy-coloured people" (mixed-bloods, like ME for instance.)
free dixie,sw
lincoln was about the same sort as "wee willie klintoon". BOTH would do ANYTHING for more POWER & MONEY.
free dixie,sw
lol AT you.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
I was only commenting on this one.
Ever heard of divide and conquer?
You don't have to be in the middle of hostilities to do that.
"Debunks the claim slavery was the root cause of the war."
You'll never convince the Lincoln Lovers of that.
bingo!
That would mean that Lincoln was actively planning for hositilites and held out no hope for a peaceful settlement. I haven't seen any evidence to support that.
Now, now.
I would argue that his insistance that the Union be preserved is very much evidence of that.
< raising eyebrows > Huh?
free dixie,sw
But in all his talk about preserving the Union he also made it clear that no violence would occur without the south initiating it. Planning a dual front is not in keeping with that.
Could it be that once a party breaks the terms of a contract, as Washington did, it behooves the other party to remove himself from the transaction.Interesting claim, since all the seceding states (including those which attacked federal installations) did so before Lincoln was sworn in.
That's not true. North Carolina seceded May 20th, 1861. Abraham St. Lincoln was sworn in March 4th, 1861. March comes before May most years.
It was not defined by law.
It existed to be sure but it was not written as law of the land.
There I believe lies the difference, Lincoln offered the south a Chance to make it the law of the land, they refused and legalized it in the Confederacy.
You are mistaken. Slaves were chattel property, same status as cattle or livestock and thusly the institution was considered "covered" by Constitutional guarantees of private property ownership. Today, we view the slaves as though they were an equal human, but most Caucasians of that time did not. Simple color made them "not equal". Refer to the treatment of all peoples of color in that era for proof.
Your position is validated only from today's perspective interjected upon Nineteenth century life. It took a war to revise that old philosophy.
Show me one law that legally describes the condition of slavery?
It can't be done. There was no legal definition of slavery in the United States government until after the Civil war.
By The way, you have proved my point indirectly. Lincoln offered the South a legalization of slavery to force a national debate and a vote that they knew they would not and could not win.
Just like abortion and all those other things the democrats have forced upon us, slavery would never be legalized through normal means.
He's likely never heard of a u-boat in a Galveston park, either.
That's because he never read "Yacts vs. Subs".
By no means. The "root cause" of a war can lie very deep indeed. "Root causes" are distinguished from surface causes. Historians who speak of slavery as a "root cause" of the war are trying to explain how it was that the US became divided into two hostile camps, rather than the specific circumstances that sparked the war.
Slaves were chattel property, same status as cattle or livestock and thusly the institution was considered "covered" by Constitutional guarantees of private property ownership.
There were abolitionists who argued that the Constitution and laws actually forbade slavery. That was to be sure very much a minority point of view.
The anarchist Lysander Spooner, beloved by neo-confederates for his attacks on Lincoln, wrote a book on the subject. It's a curiousity, since Spooner didn't believe that the Constitution was a binding authority, but if one values Spooner's contributions, his view on this should also be considered.
The larger point is that there wasn't one unified 19th century opinion on race and slavery. Even if there were it wouldn't be immune from criticism. If you criticize present day thinking about this or that issue, there's no reason why one can't do the same for past positions on social or political questions.
People at the time understood that, and that helps to explain why slaveowners were so terrified of the abolitionist movement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.