Re: Lincoln's Letter to the Editor of the N,Y, Tribune

Ron Dean wrote:

Chris Thompson wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:

Chris Thompson wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:

>
I do not doubt that slavery was a cause of the US Civil War, but it was President Lincoln's expressed primary objective as he wrote to the editor of the New York Tribune was to Preserve the Union. It was the South's fear that Lincoln would free the slaves, but it appears, based on the letter he wrote  to the editor of the New York newspaper, that this was a misjudgement by the South of Lincoln and his objective.
>
The institution had existed f0r over 2 centuries in the South, the question is would there have
been war had the South _n0t_ succeeded? The succession of Carolina followed by the attack on Ft. Sumter started the Civil War.
>
I had read, believed and defended the opinion that unfair tariffs imposed on the South was the main cause of the war, but this was proven wrong, in spite of the cites on the net advocating this fraud.
>
Lincoln's Letter to the editor of the New York Newspaper was written 1n August 22, 1862,  ab0ut a year and a half after the start of the War between the States:
>
Picture
Mathew Brady Photographs of Civil War-Era Personalities and Scenes, National Archives and Records Administration
Hon. Horace Greely: Executive Mansion,
Dear Sir Washington, August 22, 1862.
>
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
>
http://lincolnandemancipation.weebly.com/letter-to-horace-greeley-1862.html >
>
>

>
This really isn't difficult. I fail to see how you have so many problems with it.
>
Yes, Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union.
Why did the Union need preserving?
Because slave states seceded. (Not "succeeded".)
Why did those states secede?
Slavery.
Don't take my word for it.
Look up the Articles of Secession. Read the Cornerstone speech.
It's all written down.
>

You are right. This was the South's reason for the secession, but secession was due to a misunderstanding of Lincoln's objective. This based upon Lincoln's expressed words as to his objective in his letter almost 2 years after the start of the war. But maybe this was his immediate objective not his ultimate purpose. But would this not be disingenuous?
>
This is not to say that Lincoln approved slavery, he preferred freedom for all people. Did you bother to read the Letter to to the editor by Lincoln?
>

>
You have been shown how much in error you are with all of these ridiculous assertions. You keep repeating Lost Cause revisionist lies. For someone who claims to "not have a dog in this fight" you're clinging desperately to any shred of Lost Cause garbage you can grasp. I don't think anyone who's read your posts believes you aren't invested somehow in whitewashing the south's actions.
>
As to your most recent claim- that the south misunderstood Lincoln's objectives. Nonsense. Utter rubbish. There was never a misunderstanding about slavery. Read the discussions of slavery from the 1787 Constitutional Convention. A fair number of delegates wanted abolition immediately- most notably Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. But the Constitution would never have been ratified if it ended slavery right then. The southern states had to be placated, but the northern states did win concessions- the end of the international slave trade in 1808 for instance. And even some slaveholding delegates realized that slavery had to be abolished eventually, and sooner better than later. George Mason was one of these.
>
So there was never and misunderstanding on the south's part about slavery. The abolitionists had only grown more influential and numerous in the years since the convention. The south was terrified of slave uprisings- that's why they responded to John Brown's actions so viciously (and ever since have portrayed him as a lunatic, rather than a (mostly) righteous and dedicated man.
>
So once again you are just wrong about this. But I'm pretty certain you will repeat Lost Cause junk some more, and maybe come up with some new garbage, because for some reason you're an apologist for slavers. That's pretty repugnant, you now.
>
Chris
>

You've twisted what I wrote to mean something I did not - This is dishonest You are corrupt!

I twisted nothing. I took what you wrote to its only logical conclusion. Your own words take you there.

So, According to you, Lincoln was a liar!
 

No, according to me, you are the liar.

I'm done with this topic!
 

You've made your case and proven yourself an apologist for slavers and rebels. I agree- there's nothing left for you to accomplish in this thread.
Chris