>>>He is saying he is embarrassed by the existence of slavery—how does that NOT show concern for those who suffer under it?<<<
If Lincoln was so embarrassed by the existence of slavery then why did he support strengthening the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and opposed efforts in the Republican Party to repeal the law? Some links:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html
Excerpt: [Lincoln] instructed his political compatriot, William Seward, to work on federal legislation that would outlaw the various personal liberty laws that existed in some of the Northern states. These laws were used to attempt to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor69.html
Excerpt: “Abraham Lincoln consistently pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, i.e., to make northern states complicit in the perpetuation of the peculiar institution. He moreover opposed efforts in the Republican Party to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law. (See his letters to Salmon P. Chase and Samuel Galloway on June 20, 1859 and July 28, 1859, respectively.)”
“If Lincoln was so embarrassed by the existence of slavery then why did he support strengthening the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and opposed efforts in the Republican Party to repeal the law?”
We all know he wasn’t an abolitionist. He was a conservative, and not willing to go so far. That doesn’t mean everything he said is tinged by a disregard for negroes. It’s easy to be radical on the issue 150 years after the fact. In the midst of history, most people aren’t willing to move heaven and earth to stamp out things they don’t like.
Yeah, let's look at that for a moment because DiLorenzo deliberately omits one of the three clauses. From Goodwin's book, page 296:
"...Lincoln relayed a confidential message to Seward that he had drafted three short resolutions. He instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they had been issued from Springfield. The first resolved that "the Constitution should bever be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states." The second would amend the Fugitive Slave Laws "by granting a jury trial to the fugitive." The third recommended that all state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Laws be repealed."
Here we see why Thomas DiLorenzo is a crap historian. By omitting reference to the second clause he reduces the meaning of the third clause, because if the fugitive slave is guaranteed a jury trial before being returned to slavery then that made all state and local personal liberty laws, which had be constantly struck down as unconstitutional, moot. States didn't have to guarantee the slaves legal protection, the federal government did. And as for the first clause, note that Lincoln said that Congress would not be able to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. The clause excludes the territories, where Congress could exercise it's constitutional control and interfere with slavery to its heart's content. So Tommy's attempt to portray Lincoln as pro-slavery is absolute nonsense.
Excerpt: “Abraham Lincoln consistently pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, i.e., to make northern states complicit in the perpetuation of the peculiar institution.
And as President did you expect Lincoln to refuse to enforce those laws? If so, how?
You need to read some history books and not just cut and paste stuff. But if you’re coming from the position that those who support Lincoln claim he was perfect—which I’ve never heard any supporter of Lincoln say—you’re never going to be able to get it straight.
If you want to believe Lincoln could have outlawed slavery on his own, feel free. The truth of the matter is far more complicated. I’d suggest some books, but you won’t read them, so I won’t bother.
Have a good day.