Schurz - "It is true, in political campaigns he had occasionally spoken on the ostensible issues between the Whigs and the Democrats, the tariff, internal improvements, banks, and so on, but only in a perfunctory manner. Had he ever given much serious thought and study to these subjects, it is safe to assume that a mind so prolific of original conceits as his would certainly have produced some utterance upon them worth remembering. His soul had evidently never been deeply stirred by such topics."
Contrasted with Lincoln: "I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views" - Lincoln to Edward Wallace, October 11, 1859
In other words, what Schurz calls perfunctory and minimal was said by Lincoln himself to have been his #1 issue in old times.
Now, consider what Schurz says next - that Lincoln had never given tariffs any serious thought. Aside from the fact that Lincoln did give them serious thought to the point that he made more speeches on them than any other issue in his early years (and that he was still making speeches on them in his presidential years) there exists direct documentary evidence that he did give serious thought to tariffs. This is found in the collected works volume I, pages 408-416. These pages show a large fragment of Lincoln's personal notes on protectionism. In them he lays out several arguments in favor of protectionism, indicating that he has put much thought into the issue and his position on it.
Since it is a safe conclusion that Lincoln knew Lincoln better than Schurz knew Lincoln, places where Lincoln contradicts Schurz on the subject of Lincoln must be yielded to Lincoln. Therefore Schurz was wrong. But when his moral nature was aroused, his brain developed an untiring activity until it had mastered all the knowledge within reach . As soon as the repeal of the Missouri Compromise had thrust the slavery question into politics as the paramount issue, Lincoln plunged into an arduous study of all its legal, historical, and moral aspects, and then his mind became a complete arsenal of argument. His rich natural gifts, trained by long and varied practice, had made him an orator of rare persuasiveness.
Your interpretation is so skewed as to be laughable. Lincoln did make those speeches in "old times." And between 1850 and 1854 he was not active in politics at all. It no longer interested him. What reanimated him, as any number of sources will tell you, was the slavery question. From that time on, that issue was what compelled him, not tariffs.
Walt
It's also a safe conclusion that Schurz knew Lincoln better than you do.
Surely -- this is the most pedantic thread on FR in a long time.
Lincoln's issue was slavery, not tariffs or protectionism. You look a fool for starting such a ridiculous thread.
Walt
That fact is irrelevent to discussions of the Civil War.
Lincoln got out of politics after 1850 for four years. A fair person would consider the slate clean as of 1854 and consider what Lincoln said after that. But you are not interested in being fair.
Walt
You quote one sentence from Lincoln's letter to Wallace but leave out the sense of the letter, which is that this wasn't the time for agitation on the tariff question. Lincoln thought that eventually the nation would come to take his view on tariffs, but was not inclined to press the issue. If you're biased or paranoid you might see this as an admission of a behind the scenes conspiracy, but the more plausible explanation is that Lincoln didn't think the tariff was that important an issue in 1859. Politicians have principles, but also priorities. While Lincoln retained his belief in tariffs, he wasn't inclined to promote them at that date because other things were more important. The Whig conception of government was that Congress would work out questions such as the tariff on its own, and it's plausible that that view is reflected in the letter.
It does not seem to be correct to say that Lincoln "was still making speeches on them [tariffs] in his presidential years." A President could not avoid dealing with this issue, but Lincoln made few speeches as President and the tariff does not appear to have been the primary subject of any of them. The Collected Works bear this out. There were the pre-inaugural remarks in Pittsburgh on the tariff, not during his Presidential years, and very much an anomaly for the later Lincoln -- a reassurance to the strongest pro-tariff constituency in the country that its interests would not be neglected. And there were these comments in New Haven:
The old question of tariff---a matter that will remain one of the chief affairs of national housekeeping to all time---the question of the management of financial affairs; the question of the disposition of the public domain---how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it well settled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people---these will remain open and require attention for a great while yet, and these questions will have to be attended to by whatever party has the control of the government. Yet, just now, they cannot even obtain a hearing, and I do not purpose to detain you upon these topics, or what sort of hearing they should have when opportunity shall come.
For, whether we will or not, the question of Slavery is the question, the all absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us---and by that I mean, not the Republican party alone, but the whole American people, here and elsewhere---all of us wish this question settled---wish it out of the way. It stands in the way, and prevents the adjustment, and the giving of necessary attention to other questions of national house-keeping. ...
The truth is, that this question is one of national importance, and we cannot help dealing with it: we must do something about it, whether we will or not. We cannot avoid it; the subject is one we cannot avoid considering; we can no more avoid it than a man can live without eating. It is upon us; it attaches to the body politic as much and as closely as the natural wants attach to our natural bodies. Now I think it important that this matter should be taken up in earnest, and really settled. And one way to bring about a true settlement of the question is to understand its true magnitude.
"This question" was slavery, not the tariff. This is a good example of the passion and eloquence Lincoln brought to discussions of slavery and disunion, a passion and eloquence not found in his remarks on the tariffs. Schurz may not have been as well acquainted with Lincoln's early career, but he was more correct about Lincoln than later writers who've had access to more information and used it in only to confirm their biases and manias.
I did not address this post to you, but since you have chosen to respond, perhaps you could deal with Clingman's February 4th 1861 speech and his assertion that emancipation leaving millions of freed blacks at liberty would be "the greatest evil" that could be done to the South, far more serious than tariff questions. That speech clearly establishes the preservation of slavery and the "way of life" that it maintained as Clingman's primary interest, and the tariff as a secondary question on par with railway subsidies and the Homestead Act. In his other speeches, the tariff is more important, but it does not take precedence over slavery in importance.
The record also reveals Clingman to have been obsessed by slavery and race for years before the tariff revision of 1861 and shows that tariffs could not have been the primary reason for his support for secession. Clingman was talking about secession, Southern independence and war ten years earlier. It was not the passage of the tariff, but the election of a Republican President, whom he perceived to be anti-slavery, that led Clingman to take the step that he had been talking about a decade before. Clingman's dislike of a Republican, supposedly anti-Southern, President included a dislike of the tariffs that Republicans wanted, but his dislike of protective tariffs did not exclude a fanatical concern about the alleged threat to slavery.
Clingman clearly was a fanatical free trader, but that didn't prevent him from also being a fanatical pro-slaver and slavery expansionist. He changed from being a member of the protectionist Whig party and a follower of Henry Clay to a passionate low tariff Democrat, but never wavered in his support for slavery. One can't simply keep Clingman the free trader and ignore the rest of his life, thought and actions.