Posted on 05/09/2005 9:35:24 PM PDT by CHARLITE
For the most part, I agree with Peter Lawler’s critique of the recent New York Times column by David Brooks on Lincoln and the evangelical abolitionists. But Lawler says one thing that is dead wrong and needs to be corrected. Lawler writes that “Lincoln opposed abolitionism before the Civil War because he believed it was unconstitutional; the Constitution only opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories. Abolitionism was a revolutionary principle, and it could finally only be justified by Lincoln after civil war had begun.” While Lawler is correct in observing that Lincoln was no abolitionist, his argument plays into the hands of Lincoln’s detractors who argue that Lincoln really cared nothing about black freedom and only accepted the principle of emancipation out of desperation.
Lawler’s argument also misses a point that Lincoln understood very well: The key to ending slavery where it existed lay not with the national government but with the states. Lawler needs to read Allan Guelzo’s remarkable book, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America.
Guelzo argues persuasively that Lincoln’s “face was set toward the goal of emancipation from the day he first took the presidential oath.” To achieve this goal, he planned to pursue a policy of legislated, gradual, compensated emancipation from the very outset of his presidency. He believed he could convince Congress to appropriate funds for compensating slave owners to gradually free their slaves. His plan was to begin where slavery was weakest: in the northern-most slave states, especially Delaware.
The key to his strategy was to prevent the expansion of slavery into the federal territories while working to convince the legislatures of slave states to changes their statutes relating to slavery. After all, the Constitution left the issue of slavery to the states. This state legislative strategy also offered the best chance for keeping the issue of emancipation out of the federal court system, where an unfavorable judgment, a likelihood as long as Roger Taney was chief justice, could set back its prospects.
This strategy also explains what seems to be his total lack of concern about the consequences of the proposal at the beginning of his term for an amendment foreclosing forever the possibility that the federal government could interfere with the institution of slavery, even by future amendment. Lincoln’s detractors have pointed to this amendment as more evidence that he didn’t really care about ending slavery. But he was willing to accept it because he didn’t think it really mattered and it certainly didn’t interfere with his own strategy for ending slavery.
Thus while he was willing to accept this proposal as a way of bringing the seven states that had seceded back into the Union fold at the time of his inauguration, he adamantly refused any compromise on the expansion of slavery. In a series of letters written to Lyman Trumbull, William Kellogg, Elihu Washburne, and Thurlow Weed in December, 1860, Lincoln adjured them to “entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery.”
Lincoln’s strategy relied on the economic principles of supply and demand. He believed that if he could prevent the expansion of slavery into the federal territories and prevail upon state legislatures, beginning with the northern-most slave states, to accept gradual, compensated emancipation, the demand for slaves would fall while the supply would increase in the deep south. The combined effect would be to reduce the value of slave property. By thus “shrinking” slavery, he would make it uneconomical and once again place it back on the eventual road to extinction that he believed the Founders had envisioned.
The outbreak of war derailed the original version of his grand scheme, but even after the war began, Lincoln believed that if he could convince the legislatures of the loyal slave states to agree to compensated emancipation, he could end the rebellion, restore the Union, and begin the end of slavery. He reasoned that the combination of military success against the Confederacy and compensated emancipation in the loyal slave states would lead to the collapse of the Confederacy, which had staked its hopes on eventually incorporating the so-called border states.
But neither condition came to pass: Lincoln’s proposals for compensated emancipation were rejected by the border states, and the army of the Potomac under Gen. George McClellan was driven back from Richmond after coming close to capturing it. Lincoln concluded that he did not have the time to pursue his preferred legislative strategy in the border states and that therefore something stronger and more precipitous was needed to bring the war to a successful conclusion.
The Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln’s response to the failure of Union arms and compensated emancipation. The time had come, as he wrote to Cuthbert Bullitt, to stop waging war “with elder-stalk squirts, charged with rose water.” Thus after Lee’s invasion of Maryland was turned back at Antietam, Lincoln issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22 that gave the Confederates 100 days to submit to the Union or face the prospect of immediate emancipation.
Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.
Once the returns were in, he became quite public in his support of such an amendment. Still, it wasn't even passed and signed until the war was almost over. And, even then, his public declarations bearing on full equality, such as black enfranchisement, remained lukewarm even after his re-election. He advocated the vote only for select blacks, ie. the educated and those who served in the union army.
My point is that, during the war, Lincoln always moved with caution on issues concerning blacks, especially in his open public statements. He did sign enabling legislation commissioning the Freedman's Bureau, but beyond that, his intentions for federal assistance to freed black people were not at all clear -- nothwithstanding the reports we have of his comments at Hampton Roads.
And finally, nobody has said he favored forced relocation of blacks. He proposed to Douglass and other black leaders that the government would supply things like land, passage and initial material support if they would encourage emigration and actively assist in the founding of a nation for these people. That alone suggests he was not so confident that blacks would successfully integrate themselves and be accepted in their newly emancipated condition.
It was a different time. Lincoln didn't run around making public speeches on anything during the 1864 campaign. That wasn't done in those days, candidates didn't campaign as they did today. Lincoln stood by the platform, which was out there for all the world to see. The third plank, right after two planks on the need to put down the rebellion and not compromise with the rebels, called for the complete elimination of slavery through constitutional amendment.
Still, it wasn't even passed and signed until the war was almost over
The Amendment passed the Senate in the spring of 1864, but Democrat opposition kept it from gaining the necessary votes in the House. It wasn't until the 1864 election was over and the new Congress sworn in in January that the Amendment finally passed. But in his opening message to Congress in December 1864, Lincoln called on the lame duck Democrats to accept the inevitable and pass the amendment out of the House in 1864. Unfortunately they did not.
And, even then, his public declarations bearing on full equality, such as black enfranchisement, remained lukewarm even after his re-election. He advocated the vote only for select blacks, ie. the educated and those who served in the union army.
And how many politicians of the time were calling for black franchise at all? Lincoln saw advocating the vote for black veterans for what it was, a first step only. To be followed by greater freedoms and increased franchise as quickly as possible. He also knew that if he moved too fast then blacks would wind up with nothing.
As the 1864 election approached, Lincoln made quite a few speeches.
In just one day (June 16, 1864), he made several public addresses in Philadelphia. One of them follows --
Speech delivered at the Great Central Sanitary Fair, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Yet it continues, and several relieving coincidents [coincidences] have accompanied it from the very beginning, which have not been known, as I understood [understand], or have any knowledge of, in any former wars in the history of the world.
The Sanitary Commission, with all its benevolent labors, the Christian commission, with all its Christian and benevolent labors, and the various places, arrangements, so to speak, and institutions, have contributed to the comfort and relief of the soldiers. You have two of these places in this city---the Cooper-Shop and Union Volunteer Refreshment Saloons. [Great applause and cheers.] And lastly, these fairs, which, I believe, began only in last August, if I mistake not, in Chicago; then at Boston, at Cincinnati, Brooklyn, New York, at Baltimore, and those at present held at St. Louis, Pittsburg, and Philadelphia.
The motive and object that lie at the bottom of all these are most worthy; for, say what you will, after all the most is due to the soldier, who takes his life in his hands and goes to fight the battles of his country. [Cheers.] In what is contributed to his comfort when he passes to and fro [from city to city], and in what is contributed to him when he is sick and wounded, in whatever shape it comes, whether from the fair and tender hand of woman, or from any other source, is much, very much; but, I think there is still that which has as much value to him [in the continual reminders he sees in the newspapers, that while he is absent he is yet remembered by the loved ones at home---he is not forgotten. [Cheers.]
Another view of these various institutions is worthy of consideration, I think; they are voluntary contributions, given freely, zealously, and earnestly, on top of all the disturbances of business, [of all the disorders,] the taxation and burdens that the war has imposed upon us, giving proof that the national resources are not at all exhausted, [cheers;] that the national spirit of patriotism is even [firmer and] stronger than at the commencement of the rebellion [war].
It is a pertinent question often asked in the mind privately, and from one to the other, when is the war to end? Surely I feel as deep [great] an interest in this question as any other can, but I do not wish to name a day, or month, or a year when it is to end. I do not wish to run any risk of seeing the time come, without our being ready for the end, and for fear of disappointment, because the time had come and not the end. [We accepted this war; we did not begin it.] We accepted this war for an object, a worthy object, and the war will end when that object is attained. Under God, I hope it never will until that time. [Great cheering.]
Speaking of the present campaign, General Grant is reported to have said, I am going through on this line if it takes all summer. [Cheers.] This war has taken three years; it was begun or accepted upon the line of restoring the national authority over the whole national domain, and for the American people, as far as my knowledge enables me to speak, I say we are going through on this line if it takes three years more. [Cheers.] My friends, I did not know but that I might be called upon to say a few words before I got away from here, but I did not know it was coming just here. [Laughter.] I have never been in the habit of making predictions in regard to the war, but I am almost tempted to make one. If I were to hazard it, it is this: That Grant is this evening, with General Meade and General Hancock, of Pennsylvania, and the brave officers and soldiers with him, in a position from whence he will never be dislodged until Richmond is taken [loud cheering], and I have but one single proposition to put now, and, perhaps, I can best put it in form of an interrogative [interragatory]. If I shall discover that General Grant and the noble officers and men under him can be greatly facilitated in their work by a sudden pouring forward [forth] of men and assistance, will you give them to me? [Cries of ``yes.''] Then, I say, stand ready, for I am watching for the chance. [Laughter and cheers.] I thank you, gentlemen.
At other times during the 1864 election season he made more public addresses, many of them to union regiments. Brief as these usually were, they also were duly reported in the newspapers for all to read.
Here's one from August 18, 1864, delivered to an Ohio regiment at the White House and reported the following day in the New York Times and the New York Tribune.
I say this in order to impress upon you, if you are not already so impressed, that no small matter should divert us from our great purpose. There may be some irregularities in the practical application of our system. It is fair that each man shall pay taxes in exact proportion to the value of his property; but if we should wait before collecting a tax to adjust the taxes upon each man in exact proportion with every other man, we should never collect any tax at all. There may be mistakes made sometimes; things may be done wrong while the officers of the Government do all they can to prevent mistakes. But I beg of you, as citizens of this great Republic, not to let your minds be carried off from the great work we have before us. This struggle is too large for you to be diverted from it by any small matter. When you return to your homes rise up to the height of a generation of men worthy of a free Government, and we will carry out the great work we have commenced. I return to you my sincere thanks, soldiers, for the honor you have done me this afternoon.
I concur with everything else you said in your post.
Maybe, and maybe not? But what's your point. Probably 99% of people thought that then, including many staunch abolitionists. Most also thought Irish Catholics were inferior too.
Lincoln was a politician, so it's hard to know what he really thought about "equality" of the races. But that he opposed slavery is without question. And in one of his last public pronouncements --- one that may have actually cost him his life -- he called for the right to vote for black veterans of the Union Army, and other "educated and accomplished" blacks. It has been reported that John Wilks Booth attended that speech and vowed on the spot to kill Lincoln for supporting the right of blacks to vote. Three days later, he did kill him.
And ask yourself. Why did the Democrats call him "Black Lincoln" if the guy was such a "racist"?
This is key to understanding the causes of the Civil War. If Lincoln had his way and stopped expansion, the slave system would have collapsed on itself, and states would have been forced to end on their own.
I guess you never heard of the American Colonization Society --- founded by James Madison when Lincoln was just a kid. The aim was to free slaves and fund a nation for them where they could live free. It did form the nation of Liberia. Neither Madison or Lincoln could see how freed slaves could ever reach full citizenship in the US when you considered the racial attitudes of the day. Were they wrong in that belief? Consider that it was 100 years after Lincoln died and all slaves were free before many blacks were even allowed to take a pee in the same toilet as a white.
Ask yourself the question. If you were black in 1860, would you have wanted to stay in the US, or would you have rather had your own nation?
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
You ask if I would have wanted to remain in the US in 1860, were I black. Yes, absolutely.
James Webb's 2004 book Born Fighting, pg 212:
"As John Hope Franklin points out in his landmark work From Slavery to Freedom, by 1860 Virginia was still the greatest slaveholding state, while regionwide less than 5% of the whites in the South owned slaves. Franklin goes on to say that, "Fully three-fourths of the white people of the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery or the plantation system." Further, of the 385,000 who did own slaves, more than 200,000 had five slaves or less, and "fully 338,000 owners, or 88 percent of all the owners of slaves in 1860 held less than twenty slaves.""
So. We can take your "half of all families" which morphs into 20% of the whole, or James Webb's less than 5%.
You would rather call people marxist and go home.
Well, Mr N-S, there were indeed a couple of arguably marxist journalists who did like to paint the Civil War as the slaveowners against the forces of progress. And they were big fans of Mr Lincoln as well:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/07.htm
I wrote that nowhere except Haiti and the US did war accompany emancipation, and you write about government legislation as if that addressed the point. No wonder you chose the name "non-sequitur" ("it does not follow").
No, but that is another fine non-sequitur that you have posted. It not only doesn't contradict the Douglass' selection that I posted, it in fact restates his theme:
though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future,
Hunh. And that agenda is? Guilt by association? Or does the League of the South enforce a rigid orthodoxy that you would like to share with us? Perhaps Prof Wilson is also a Boy Scout? A Mason? Illuminati?
At least now your agenda becomes clearer. Do tell us more about the evil men of American history. And it's not clear- is Lincoln one of those evil men?
All of the pictures of Lincoln show him to be somber and sober, not gay or happy.
The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs in Ashland, Ohio will probably be surprised to learn that they are neoconfederates. As for "clipping Douglass off mid sentence" I stopped at a paragraph, as did you. The entire speech is available at the link I posted.
Well I can't speak to the Mason or Illuminati part, but Wilson is not 'associated' with the League of the South. He is one of the directors, the leader of an organization espousing the southron line in every thing and every way. Hell yes he has an agenda. Lincoln was the devil incarnate just because he stood up for the Constitution and opposed the illegal rebellion.
It contradicts what you were implying. That Douglass did not believe that Lincoln was interested in the welfare of the black population of this country or that he cared if slavery ended at all. Quoting out of context does that.
You do like simple answers, don't you? Anyone who disagrees is a Marxist, things like that? Webb's statistics are for slave holding states as a whole and include those 4 states that did not participate in the rebellion. If you look at the seven original rebelling states the percentage of families that owned slaves was around 37%. In some states like Mississippi and Alabama it was almost half. In the four states that joined the rebellion after Sumter about 25% of all families owned slaves. In all the rebellious states the percentage was about 31%. A much more reasonable figure than your 5%, and easier to understand why the south could rebel to protect slavery when so many people received benefit from it.
And even that 5% is misleading. In 1950 the percentage of people in this country who owned corporate stock equal to the value of a single prime slave, about $1000, was only 2%. Slavery in it's time was more common than stock ownership was 90 years later.
." Further, of the 385,000 who did own slaves, more than 200,000 had five slaves or less, and "fully 338,000 owners, or 88 percent of all the owners of slaves in 1860 held less than twenty slaves.""
I'm not sure what your point is here. If you're trying to say that most slave owners were not large plantation owners then I would agree with that. Slave ownership was very much a middle class institution for the southern white. Thomas Jackson, for example, was a college professor prior to the war. He owned as many as 9 slaves at one time. Most slaves weren't out laboring in the fields. They were cooks, maids, grooms, gardeners, and nannies. Household staff. But does that make their impact any less on the southern white family, does it?
You stopped at a paragraph that left the impression that Douglass thought Lincoln was uninterested in blacks. The reality is the Douglass said that Lincoln did more for blacks than was thought possible.
Selective quoting (and outright lies) are the only thing that keeps the neo-confederate mythology alive.
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.