That is a very biased view of Lincoln’s feelings toward slavery. Yes, he opposed it on economic grounds (like Spooner, he saw slavery as a flawed economy that rendered free-labor politically and economically subservient to the wealthy landed class). But any fair reading of Lincoln’s words on slavery show that he also opposed it on moral, religious and philosophical grounds as well. Go here for a compilation of Lincoln’s words on slavery I’d also remind you of the numerous southerners who justified slavery solely on economic grounds and refused to attempt to make a moral case for it.
After all, was not the nation physically destroyed by the war to a degree never before and never since seen? Did not Lincoln trample upon the Constitution's plain meaning in order wage that same war?
The reality is that the largest economic expansion in the history of the world occurred in the 30 years after the war. It is true that much of the south did not enjoy as many fruits from that expansion as did the rest of the nation. But that was the fault of the south itself for attempting to resurrect their pre-Civil War economic and class systems and not breaking the power of the aristocrat class that dominated their politics and economies. The opportunity was there. They did not avail themselves to it.
As to “trampling upon the Constitution” that is your opinion. My opinion is that the southern states had no constitutional right to unilateral secession and attempted to destroy the constitution with their actions.
I see you've taken up the art of scarecrow conduction. Show me where I ever said anything of the sort as I don't believe you can. I on the other hand would be more than happy to provide you with writing samples from James McPherson where he uses abolitionism and Lincoln interchangably as if they were one in the same to display what he purports to have been THE northern position.
I apologize to you if you have not done that, but you know other Lincoln bashers constantly do --- the most notable recently has been Thomas DiLorenzo and his sock-puppet, Walter Williams. (sorry to Dr. Williams --- I respect his economic knowledge, but as a historian --- he’s a pitiful.) Neither, it appears, understands the dynamics of the age or the broad-spectrum of opinions that drove those dynamics. I’m not sure what quotes from McPherson you have in mind, but I would caution that there is and was a significant difference between “abolitionism” and Abolitionists. The American Colonization Society sought the gradual abolition of slavery for over 40 years. Would anyone call members of that organization like Madison or Clay Abolitionists? They were both slave-owners! Abolitionism was a belief that slavery should be ended, and Abolitionists were an organized political faction whose sole purpose was to end slavery through any means available. I return to my analogy over abortion today. I am opposed to abortion on demand for moral, religious and philosophical reasons rooted in our founding documents. But I have no patience with Operation Rescue or other organizations that are willing to use violence to end the practice. I want to work within the laws to settle the issue. A century from now, will some demagogue like DiLorenzo say that I wasn’t opposed to abortion?
How so? It's based upon an authentic citation of Lincoln's speeches themselves.
Further, I don't believe it could even reasonably approach the bias contained in most yankee presentations of Lincoln's views, which tend to reprint what suits their agenda and ignore what does not.
But any fair reading of Lincoln?s words on slavery show that he also opposed it on moral, religious and philosophical grounds as well.
I've long conceded that Lincoln had some sort of underlying moral opposition to slavery so I don't see what your purpose is. As far as I am concerned the debate over his moral position is one over the degree it influenced him, when, and where.
After all, was not the nation physically destroyed by the war to a degree never before and never since seen? Did not Lincoln trample upon the Constitution's plain meaning in order wage that same war?
The reality is that the largest economic expansion in the history of the world occurred in the 30 years after the war.
...which could have been larger had the nation not destroyed a huge chunk of its economy and workforce by war.
It is true that much of the south did not enjoy as many fruits from that expansion as did the rest of the nation. But that was the fault of the south itself for attempting to resurrect their pre-Civil War economic and class systems
Nonsense. The main fault itself lies squarely with the fact that a vibrant southern economy was thoroughly decimated by the physical destruction of the war itself. What you suggest is at most a distant secondary factor, if anything at all.
As to ?trampling upon the Constitution? that is your opinion.
Fair enough, though I contend it is a thoroughly evidenced one with several clear cases of constitutional abuse that are documentable.
I apologize to you if you have not done that, but you know other Lincoln bashers constantly do
It's entirely possible, but I am no more in control of their actions than they are of mine. I?m not sure what quotes from McPherson you have in mind, but I would caution that there is and was a significant difference between ?abolitionism? and Abolitionists.
The quote is a passage where he directly references the abolitionist movement in what he describes as its militant faction - obviously the John Browns, Spooners, and Garrisons. He uses Lincoln and abolitionism interchangably as if they were one in the same. Here's the quote:
"What explained the growing Northern hostility to slavery? Since 1831 the militant phase of the abolitionist movement had crusaded against bondage as unchristian, immoral, and a violation of the republican principle of equality on which the nation had been founded. The fact that this land of liberty had become the world's largest slaveholding nation seemed a shameful anomaly to an increasing number of Northerners. "The monstrous injustice of slavery," said Lincoln in 1854, "deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world - enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites." Slavery degraded not only the slaves, argued Northerners opposed to its expansion, by demeaning the dignity of labor and dragging down the wages of all workers; it also degraded free people who owned no slaves. If slavery goes into the territories, declared abolitionists, "the free labor of all the states will not.... If the free labor of the states goes there, the slave labor of the southern states will not, and in a few years the country will teem with an active and energetic population." - McPherson, article on the causes of the war, history channel website
Well, it's an interesting distinction, but I wonder, does it make a difference?
Consider for a moment, if you were a Virginian who thinks there is a movement afoot in the North to impair your political ability to resist tariffs (e.g., the Morill Tariff), work your plantation, and be secure in your bed at night, is there a useful distinction to be made between limousine-liberal spewers like Garrison and Wendell Phillips, both of whom publicly cursed the Constitution and made their contempt for it known? Phillips pulled this stunt in 1842, Garrison in 1851, both of them failing to decline, on principle, the protections of the republic afterward, however, or to seek the protection of some European power.
The point of distinguishing between an abolitionist and an Abolitionist, if you insist on a distinction, would be to show someone on the other side some reason to apprehend the approach of the one, but not the other. But as we have seen from the progress of Republicanism from 1856 to 1868, the fulminations of the most ardent abolitionists were shorn of the trappings of power, whereas the policies of Abraham Lincoln were decidedly not.
From some abolitionists, the Southern planters received incendiary pamphlets and rhetoric. From Lincoln, authentic fire and sword. If I had to choose, I'd name the fire-eaters as the "small-A" abolitionists, and capitalize the title for Lincoln and Grant and their two-million-man army.