Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 15:12
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Just to be clear I'm not pro slavery, the war was bad but necessary to eradicate a greater evil.
Brian
Brian
My memory, but I admit to it being suspect now, is that the South wanted to keep slavery and Lincoln wanted to keep the Union and was prepared to accept slavery if that would maintain it, however the South did not trust him and stormed some fort, Sumner I think, and thus precipitated the war.
I'm not going to revisit this as it is too big a subject and I no longer have the books I had so would end up Googling my life away.
Brian
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
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.
In fact, just to avoid confusion, let's have the text of the entire letter in question:
One and one half year after the war started.
I'm confused, how is the fact that this speech is made after the war has started proof that that was not his inclination at his inauguration, the quote in post 17 states that he had no intention to abolish slavery.
Didn't he have slaves of his own?
Brian
The reason I entered the discussion is that many people assume that the North went to war to abolish slavery, it didn't , but I guess I should put 2 and 2 together say that the South started the war to maintain slavery. Thanks for making me appreciate the obvious.
Brian
Aaaand there's my example of revisionist history in action.
Yeah, the North's entire goal was to preserve the Union, nothing more.
Abolition came about as a result antebellum, but it wasn't actually the US Government's goal at any point during the war.
did you mean antebellumYeah, the North's entire goal was to preserve the Union, nothing more.
Abolition came about as a result antebellum, but it wasn't actually the US Government's goal at any point during the war.
Trivia question- Where did the final confederate surrender take place Brian?