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

John Harshman wrote:

On 5/22/24 4:49 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 5/22/24 12:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 5/21/24 5:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

>
I do not doubt that slavery was a cause of the US Civil War,

>
What other causes do you imagine there were?
>

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.

>
I told you to stop digging. Lincoln was elected on a platform of preventing the spread of slavery to new states and territories. The southern ruling class rightly saw that this would eventually result in free states dominating Congress and thus in the end of slavery.

 >
That was the fear, but it's questionable that the South would have respected the outlawing of slavery and just surrendered it up. Given Lincoln's letter almost two years after the start of the war, chances are slavery would have persisted throughout the Lincoln Presidency. So, the misunderstanding of Lincoln's intent instigated secession which in turn brought on the war and so, the preservation of the union was Lincoln's expressed and sole objective for the struggle it was not slavery if his words to the editor of the NY newspaper in 1862 are accepted as honest.

>
This is yet another personal fantasy of yours. Now it's fairly likely that slavery would have persisted through Lincoln's Presidency absent secession, but it would have been under increasing restriction. If nothing else, Lincoln's appointments to the Supreme Court would likely have reversed the Dred Scott decision, and Congress would probably have repealed the Fugitive Slave Act. And there would likely have been the addition of new free states to Congress as well as the effect of the 1860 census on representation. I suspect that abolitionism would have gained much ground too.
>
This letter you keep harping on is irrelevant to anything except the conduct of the war that in your hypothetical scenario didn't happen.
>

Lincoln's goal was the eventual elimination of slavery, but after secession he considered restoration of the Union more immediately important.

<
  His words to the editor suggest otherwise. But he did not favor slavery.

>
You understand nothing of this.
>

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.

>
Of course there wouldn't have been ware without secession. What are you blathering about?
>

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.

>
Only one of your cites advocated that. The rest merely mentioned both "tariff" and "Civil War" without proposing any connection between the two. Did you even read them?
>

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

>
Whatever do you possibly think that had to do with the cause of the Civil War? You're just digging your hole deeper and deeper.
>

I think you and I are talking past each other, saying the same thing.

>
We are not.
>

We agree the secession was the immediate cause of the war between the states. The south feared a change was just over the horizon and sought to  preserve slavery by separating from the Union. But this failing was the result of the South's misunderstanding of Lincoln's expressed intent.

>
There was no misunderstanding.

 >
I disagree. The south thought Lincoln was going to end slavery, but that was not his expressed objective. Did you read the letter I referenced?

>
The letter has nothing to do with his expressed objective at the time of the election or its aftermath. You may be surprised to know that context is important. Have you read Lincoln's "half slave and half free" speech? Have you looked at the Republican platform of 1860?
>

As I said, had the South not engaged in secession slavery probably would have preserved until it became unprofitable. I was surprised to find that most southerners were not slave owners. Ever wonder why Lincoln did not propose to buy the slaves then grant them freedom.

>
Compensated emancipation was definitely on the table. The clear reason that Lincoln never proposed it was that he was in the middle of a war, though if I recall it was proposed as a solution for Maryland and Kentucky. How is any of that relevant?
>

The war might have been aborted before it began. Slaves were an investment.

>
That's a fantasy scenario the ignores the fact that the slave-owners were in charge in the south and were unwilling to accept emancipation, even with compensation. Have you read any of the statements of secession?
>

Sorry, I don't have your crystal ball. No more on this topic.