ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AMERICA’S GREATEST WAR CRIMINAL

Southern Caucus ^ | ? | Ron Holland

[tberry]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AMERICA’S GREATEST WAR CRIMINAL

By Ron Holland

from Southern Caucus http://www.southerncaucus.org

Abraham Lincoln should without a doubt be named America’s greatest war criminal. His war of invasion not only killed over 600,000 innocent Americans but it was obvious from his earlier speeches that he had previously advocated the prevalent constitutional right of democratic, state by state secession. Lincoln’s War also effectively overthrew the existing decentralized, limited federal government that had existed and governed well in the US since established by America’s founding fathers. Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire.

Because of Lincoln, the former American constitutional republic fell from a dream of liberty and limited government into the nightmare big government we have today without the earlier checks and balances of state sovereignty. After Lincoln, In foreign policy, the US forgot George Washington’s warning about neutrality and we became an aggressive military abroad until today we have troops defending the Washington Empire in over 144 nations around the world.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connections as possible. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.—George Washington

Lincoln shares his war criminal actions with other well know tyrants that waged war on their own people. History shows us that politicians make war against their own citizens even more than against foreign nations. The reasons are often to establish and preserve their power base, as was the case in the Russian Revolution and the Mao Revolution. For others, like Hitler, it was misguided super patriotism and racism that brought death to tens of millions. Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency. Early in his career, Abraham Lincoln was an honorable statesman who let election year politics and the special interests supporting his presidential campaign corrupt a once great man. He knew what he was doing was wrong and unconstitutional but succumbed, as in the case of many modern day politicians, to the allure of money, power and ego.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. -- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

This quote above shows Lincoln as a statesman 12 years before he plunged the United States into its most disastrous war. Suffering a death toll so high in death rates as a percentage of total population, his act of carnage ranks with the political genocides of Stalin, Lenin and Mao during their communist revolutions. A death toll so great that it dwarfs the American deaths in all of our many declared and undeclared wars before and since this American holocaust of death and destruction.

From the following quote you can see that later Lincoln radically adjusted his rhetoric to meet the needs and demands of his business establishment supporters and financial supporters.

No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. --Abraham Lincoln

Why the complete change in rhetoric and actions? Simple, to preserve high tariffs and corporate profits for the Northeastern business establishment. Lincoln who earlier in his career had obviously favored the right of peaceful secession, provoked a war that killed 600,000 Americans, as a pay back to the eastern manufacturing establishment that bankrolled his presidential campaign. These special interests would have suffered serious financial loss if a low tariff Confederate States of America were allowed to peacefully, democratically and constitutionally secede from the United States in lawful state constitutional conventions of secession which were identical to the ratification conventions when they had joined the Union. Thus the real reasons for the death and destruction of Lincoln’s War were covered up and hidden by historians who continue, even today, to deny the truth and hide the ultimate costs of Lincoln’s American holocaust. While Lincoln’s death toll is small in comparison to total deaths by Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, there are many similarities between these men. In the Russian Civil War, from 1917 - 1922 around 9 million died under Lenin and we must add another 20 million under Stalin from 1929 to 1939. The Mao communist regime in China killed 44 to 70 million Chinese from 1949 – 1975.

Still the US constitutional republic, as established by our founding fathers, was in effect destroyed by Lincoln’s unconstitutional war just as surely as Mao and Lenin over threw the existing Chinese and Russian governments. The multitude of Lincoln apologists would say that this is just another Confederate argument certainly not accepted by most historians. I might counter that the opinions and books of these "so called" establishment historians who live off my tax dollars through government funding at liberal controlled universities and think tanks are prejudiced towards Lincoln and Washington DC. They are no different from the official government historians in China, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Their job is to lie to the American people and cover up a true and honest account of our history in order to support the government and political system in power.

History shows us that a fair and honest discussion of Lincoln’s wartime actions will not be possible as long as the Washington political establishment remains in power. Since Lincoln, the Washington Empire has reigned supreme and omnipotent and for this reason, establishment historians have never honestly debated the Lincoln war crimes.

Consider this. Was a fair and honest account of Lenin or Stalin written and published during the Soviet Communist regime? Of course not. Could a less than worshipful history of Hitler’s Third Reich have been published until after 1945? No! Even today, with only nominal communist control of China, an honest appraisal of Mao’s revolution and crimes against the Chinese people still is not possible. It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Just as Lenin’s statue could not be toppled in Red Square until after the fall of the Soviet Communist government, or the truth about Hitler couldn’t be told until after defeat of Nazi Germany, it is the same here in the United States. It is my hope that someday, in the not too distant future, a true account of the war crimes of Lincoln will be discussed, debated and even acknowledged. The Lincoln Memorial should be remodeled to show the horrors of "Lincoln the War Criminal" with the opportunity for all to visit Washington and learn how war crimes, genocide and holocaust are not just crimes that foreign politicians commit. Government and political tyranny can and has happened here just like in Germany, China and the Soviet Union and that through education and honest history, it will never happen here again.

In the future, may we have the opportunity to learn about the Nazi holocaust at the United States National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and then have the chance to visit the Lincoln War Crimes and American Holocaust Museum a few blocks away. One will state for all the world that NEVER AGAIN will a tyrant or government be allowed to target, exterminate and destroy an ethnic, racial or religious minority. The other will pledge NEVER AGAIN in America will we allow a president or government to make unconstitutional war against Sovereign states or their citizens and then cover up the truth up for over 145 years.

We should start today with an honest appraisal of what Lincoln really did to Dixie, how our black and white innocent noncombatants suffered under his total war policy against civilians. Finally we should address the cost in lives, lost liberty and federal taxes the citizens of the US have had to endure because our limited constitutional republic was destroyed.

Abraham Lincoln was a great man, a smart politician and he could have been an excellent president, had he considered the short-term costs of his high tariff and the long time price every American had to pay for his war of invasion. It is time to stop worshipping Lincoln and educate the public about the war crimes he committed against the citizens of the Southern States so this WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN

[billbears]

And please since I was quoting historical FACT could you please provide sources for your random rants? Don't take this the wrong way, but I think I would rather pull from several historical written references rather than believe your word as the Holy Writ

Nice reference. Given that blacks were free and full state citizens in the state by law from 1780 on, it's a bit of twist, even for a trash fabricator of junk books like Adams. No names, no dates, no facts just fiction

And what I find truly amazing is the fact that when evidence is produced with historical backing that you refuse to look up you dismiss it out of hand because you disagree with it. You just refuse to accept facts when presented to you, if they disagree with your point of view. Believe me sir, The information about the abolitionists was gathered from Blackwood's Magazine, 1 November 1862.

As for your date and time perhaps you might find this interesting

On October 21, 1835, Garrison was dragged through the streets of Boston with a rope around his neck. He was rescued and turned over to the mayor, Theodore Lyman. Lyman, claiming it was the only way to assure his safety, charged him with disturbing the peace and ordered him jailed. The mob, however, attached the carriage transporting him and almost captured him again. On the wall of his jail cell, Garrison wrote:

Wm. Lloyd Garrison was put into this cell Wednesday afternoon, October 21, 1835, to save him from the violence of a 'respectable and influential' mob, who sought to destroy him for preaching the abominable and dangerous doctrine that "all men are created equal..."

HERE

It's amazing what you can find if you produce fact instead of worthless rants

[Ditto]

Indiana and Ohio statutes were typical; NO free negroes were allowed to enter the state or own property in the state.

Flat out wrong and your source is a lie. Here is the Ohio Black Code from 1804 in its entirety.

------------------------------------------------------

 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio , That from and after the first day of June next. no black or mulatto person shall be permitted to settle or reside in this state, unless he or she shall first produce a fair certificate from some court within the United States, of his or her actual freedom, which certificate shall be attested by the clerk of said court, and the seal thereof annexed thereto, by said clerk.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted , That every black or mulatto person residing within this state, on or before the fifth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and four, shall enter his or her name, together with the name or names of his or her children, in the clerk's office in the county in which he, she or they reside, which shall be entered on record by said clerk, and thereafter the clerk's certificate of such record shall be sufficient evidence of his, her or their freedom; and for every entry and certificate, the person obtaining the same shall pay to the clerk twelve and an half cents. Provided nevertheless , That nothing in this act contained shall bar the lawful claim to any black or mulatto person.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted , That no person or persons residents of this state, shall be permitted to hire, or in any way employ any black or mulatto person, unless such black or mulatto person shall have one of the certificates as aforesaid, under pain of forfeiting and paying any sum not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars, at the discretion of the court, for every such offense, one-half thereof for the use of the informer and the other half for the use of the state;and shall moreover pay to the owner, if any there be, of such black or mulatto person, the sum of fifty cents for every day he, she or they shall in any wise employ, harbour or secret such black or mulatto person, which sum or sums shall be recoverable before any court having cognizance thereof.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted , That if any person or persons shall harbour or secret any black or mulatto person, the property of any person whatever, or shall in any wise hinder or prevent the lawful owner or owners from retaking and possessing his or her black or mulatto servant or servants, shall, upon conviction thereof, by indictment or information, be be fined in any sum not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars, at the discretion of the court, one-half thereof for the use of the informer and the other half for the use of the state.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted , That every black or mulatto person who shall come to reside in this state with such certificate as is required in the first section of this act, shall, within two years, have the same recorded in the clerk's office, in the county in which he or she means to reside, for which he or she shall pay to the clerk twelve and an half cents, and the clerk shall give him or her a certificate of such record.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted , That in case any person or persons, his or their agent or agents, claiming any black or mulatto person that now are or hereafter may be in this state, may apply, upon making satisfactory proof that such black or mulatto person or persons is the property of him or her who applies, to any associate judge or justice of the peace within this state, the associate judge or justice is hereby empowered and required, by his precept, to direct the sheriff or constable to arrest such black or mulatto person or persons and deliver the same in the county or township where such officers shall reside, to the claimant or claimants or his or their agent or agents, for which service the sheriff or constable shall receive such compensation as they are entitled to receive in other cases for similar services.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted , That any person or persons who shall attempt to remove, or shall remove from this state, or who shall aid and assist in removing, contrary to the provisions of this act, any black or mulatto person or persons, without first proving as hereinbefore directed, that he, she or they, is or are legally entitled so to do, shall, on conviction thereof before any court having cognizance of the same, forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand dollars, one-half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the state, to be recovered by action of debt, qui tam , or indictment, and shall moreover be liable to the action of the party injured.

  Source: http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/blohio_blacklaws.htm

----------------------------------------------------

The Ohio Law in no way prevented free blacks from entering or residing and in fact protected those individuals from Southern bounty hunters who often snatched legally free blacks for sale into slavery. It was passed to accomplish three things. 1. To prevent a mass influx of run away slaves from simply swimming across the Ohio river from slave territory in Virginia and Kentucky and prevent confrontation with those states. 2. To prevent slave owners from a defacto establishment of slavery in Ohio by shuttling their slaves across the river and calling them hired hands when on the Northern side. 3. To prevent slave catchers from running loose in Ohio and grabbing freed black citizens and selling them in slave markets. The penalty for that is the most strict in the entire code.

The same site also has the Black Codes from many states as well as the Jim Crow laws. Read those and tell me what you think of the South's respect for constitutional rights. The corrupt legislatures there had no more respect for the Constitution after the war than they did before.

[Hans Moleman]

It isn't about slavery moron, its about RIGHTS!

LOL!!!!! So the "right" to own slaves is not about slaves? LOL!!!!

You are one ignorant redneck!

(He started the name calling, not me.)

[Colt .45]

Five and a half months later on October 29 (1862), Brigadier General Rufus Saxton in Beaufort informed Secretary of War Stanton, " When the colored regiment was first organized by General Hunter no provision was made for its payment, and the men were discharged after several months' service (Union Army), receiving nothing for it. In the meantime their families suffered...This failure to pay them for their service has weakened their confidence in our promises for the future and makes them slow to enlist."

G.W. Cozzens, Superintendent of Plantations, Office Supervising Special Agent, Treasury Department, Plantation Bureau, New Orleans, on September 26 (1863), wrote to Benjamin F. Flanders, Supervising Special Agent, Treasury Department, New Orleans, " I ... call your attention to...letters received from...overseers on the Payne and Taylor plantations worked by this department; nor are these acts confined to these places alone - the Le Blane, Hermitage, Ashland, Point Houmas, and other Government places have suffered severely from having able-bodied hands forced at the point of a bayonet from the plantations for conscription." (In Union Regiments)

Flanders on the same day sent these letters to General N.P. Banks, Department of the Gulf, and indicated that this conscription was "on the part of Colonel [Matthew C.] Kempsey [Sixth Infantry, Corps d'Afrique]."
Banks' chief of staff, Brigadier General Charles P. Stone, wrote in a memorandum about "the oppression of these negro recruiting officers...The cases of cruelty are reported daily."

'Major General John A. Logan, Fifteenth Corps, Army of the Tennessee, on February 26, 1864 in Huntsville, Alabama, sent a message to U.S. Grant in Nashville, "A major of colored troops is here with his party capturing negroes, with or without their consent...They are being conscripted."

'In South Carolina, Brigadier General Rufus Saxton, Military Governor, U.S. Forces at Beaufort, on December 30, 1864, reported to Secretary of War Stanton:

"I...report my doings for the current year. ...The recruiting [into the U.S. Army of former slaves] went on slowly, when the major-general commanding (General [John G.] Foster) ordered an indiscriminate conscription of every able-bodied colored man in the department...The order spread universal confusion and terror. The negroes fled to the woods and swamps...They were hunted to their hiding places. ...Men have been seized and forced to enlist who had large families of young children dependent upon them for support.

Three boys, one only fourteen years of age, were seized in a field where they were at work and sent to a regiment in a distant part of the department without the knowledge or consent of their parents. A man on his way to enlist as a volunteer was stopped by a recruiting party. He told them where he was going and was passing on when he was again ordered to halt. He did not stop and was shot dead, and was left where he fell. ...The soldiers desired to bring him in and get the bounty offered for bringing in recruits. ...

I found the prejudice of color and race here in full force, and the general feeling of the army of occupation was unfriendly to the blacks. It was manifested in various forms of personal insult and abuse, in depredations of their plantations, stealing and destroying their crops and domestic animals, and robbing them of thier money.

The women were held as legitimate prey of lust. ...Licentiousness was widespread. ...The influences of too many [officers and soldiers] was demoralizing to the negro, and has greatly hidered the efforts for their improvement and elevation. There was a general disposition among the soldiers and civilian speculators here to defraud the negroes in their private traffic, to take the commodities which they offered for sale by force, or to pay for them in worthless money.' - All the above excerpts are taken from 'The Uncivil War, Union Army and Navy Excesses In The Official Records'-By Thomas Bland Keyes (Copyrighted 1991)

I just wanted to set the record straight so you will know that the Northern Invaders were not the saints you're making them out to be!

[bluecollarman]

"This is all based on the theory that since all humans contain both good and evil, there is no relevant difference between them. So Hitler and Mother Theresa were morally equivalent, to use a little hyperbole, since both were composed of both good and bad."

Good grief...I never...ever, made this implication. I think the facts show that the North was not morally superior to the South. I believe the war was over economics, state rights, federal control and abuse of power, not just about slavery.

I think slavery was an issue, and that the North did not have clean hands in the matter.

I think slavery is wrong, so is killing off entire Native American populations, abusing children, or exploiting various minority groups.

To compare the North to Mother Teresa and the South to Hitler is obscene.

"If a person or institution isn't perfect, then it cannot be spoken of as any better than another that is completely corrupt or evil."

So that's your position then? That the South was completely corrupt and evil? Then you wonder why we can find no common ground?

[Restorer]

Good grief...I never...ever, made this implication.

Well, lots of people do. I will agree that the war, like pretty much all wars, was about many issues. Can we at least agree that slavery was the "insoluble issue" without which it is unlikely that war would have broken out? All other factors in dispute could have been compromised. Slavery, by its very nature and the emotions it stirred up, was not amenable to compromise.

I think slavery was an issue, and that the North did not have clean hands in the matter.

Agreed.

I think slavery is wrong, so is killing off entire Native American populations, abusing children, or exploiting various minority groups.

Of course, these are activities that Americans engaged in as a country. The South participated just as much as the North.

To compare the North to Mother Teresa and the South to Hitler is obscene.

I agree. That was not my intent. I was trying to point out the common moral fallacy that says a man who once, twenty years ago, got drunk and cheated on his wife, then repented and thereafter walked the straight and narrow, is the moral equivalent of Bill Clinton. After all, both were adulterers.

That all institutions and people are imperfect is just a fact. That some are much more imperfect than others is also a fact. That difference is significant.

So that's your position then? That the South was completely corrupt and evil? Then you wonder why we can find no common ground?

I see I didn't word myself as well as I could have. I was trying to use hyperbole to make a point, that differences of degree are important.

I've never claimed that the South was completely evil. I have always thought that there is a fascinating book or movie in the story of a 1950's KKK guy in the South who was basically a good person, but had a serious blind spot that led him into doing evil things. Perhaps it could be called, "How Good People Can Do Really Bad Things."

You won't see such a publication, of course, because our media enforces the view that only completely evil and irredeemable people have ever been racist or bigoted.

I do believe that the Union side was the moral side. Not because all Union men were good people, but because the triumph of the cause for which they fought led to an increase in human freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate side shows the enormous tragedy of incredible heroism and nobility expended for a cause that was not only ignoble to begin with, but was obviously on its way out, anyway.

[bluecollarman]

Can we at least agree that slavery was the "insoluble issue" without which it is unlikely that war would have broken out?

I don't know, would you also agree the other "insoluble issue" was state's rights? If every Southern slave had been freed, and then the South had seceded, would war have happened anyway?

[Restorer]

I don't know, would you also agree the other "insoluble issue" was state's rights? If every Southern slave had been freed, and then the South had seceded, would war have happened anyway?

The reason that states' rights was so important to the South is that the area they wanted to exercise their rights in was that of slavery.

Or do you think they would have seceded just to prove they could?

My point has always been that the North and South gradually drew apart emotionally, until many in the South no longer felt the "ties that bind" to the Union. The issue that created this distance was that of slavery.

Secession was in many ways like a divorce. Few people get divorced just because they believe they have a legal right to do so. They get divorced because they want OUT for some reason. The reason they want out is the root cause of the breakup, regardless of what rationale they may come up with to justify their actions.

[stainlessbanner]

Lincoln was clearly a gradual abolitionist

Like his solution to ship all the blacks back to Africa?

[WhiskeyPapa]

Like his solution to ship all the blacks back to Africa?

Ho hum.

"By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.

"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."

...For the newly freed and the newly enlisted black men who served in the Union army--in the end more than 179,000 of them---perhaps the greatest moment was when they they too, shared the experience of paying their respects, of marching past their presidents in their new uniforms, looking as smart and martial as any. On April 23, 1864, and again two days later, newly mustered black regiments in a division attached to the IX corps passed through Washington on their way to the Virginia front. They marched proudly down Pennsylvania Avenue, past Willard's Hotel, where Lincoln and their commander, Burnside stood on a balcony watching. When the six black regiments came in sight of the president they went wild, singing, cheering, dancing in the street while marching. As each unit passed they saluted, and he took off his hat in return, the same modest yet meaningful acknowledgement he gave his white soldiers. He looked old and worn to the men in the street, but they could not see the cheer in his breast as he witnessed the culmination of their long journey from slavery, and pondered, perhaps, what it had cost him to be part of it. Even when rain began to fall and Burnside suggested they step inside while the parade continued, Lincoln decided to stay outdoors. "If they can stand it," he said, "I guess I can."

--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis

"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."

April 11, 1865

President Lincoln did float the idea of colonization for a time in 1862. But he is clearly on the record favoring black equality and black suffrage later in the war. You only look a fool not to know these -very- basic facts from the American Civil War.

Walt

[Elihu Burritt]

I just wanted to set the record straight so you will know that the Northern Invaders were not the saints you're making them out to be!

Half of Sherman's Army was made up of southerners. You are just citing their behaviour. They were tough, and they were well cultured in the southern arts of handling blacks.

The First Alabama USA beat the crap out of seven regular confederate cavalry regiments, one by one.

Especially effective was the division the Georgia irregulars with Sherman. They encamped next to Columbia SC, and going through the town looking for whisky, the locals all assumed they were southerners (which they were) and gave them whatever they asked. Soon the flames spread.

Nothing like a good ole boy southern grudge match.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Nothing like a good ole boy southern grudge match.

Look for that next Saturday at Florida Field.

Fight with all your might,
For the Orange and White!

Fight Vols Fight!

Walt

[stainlessbanner]

he is clearly on the record favoring black equality and black suffrage later in the war

Like BillBears always says, why didn't lincoln free the slaves in 1861 prior to the war? Actions speak louder than words. (No cut and paste-o-rama, please).

[bluecollarman]

"Secession was in many ways like a divorce. Few people get divorced just because they believe they have a legal right to do so.

.Your nearly got it. The analogy would be more like an abusive/controlling relationship where one mate threatens to beat the hell out of the other one if he/she decides to leave. Then they would declare the divorce laws unconstitutional. Yes, people will get divorced to get out of bad relationships.

[bluecollarman]

Answer me this... If I concede all of your points. The war was about slavery, and any other you may argue. Why would you forbid me to honor my heritage as I understand it? Do we have to agree? You wish me to give up my freedom of expression and association? You wish for me to dishonor what I consider to be noble men dying for a cause they believed in? Why? Because they were on the losing side of the war? What would you allow me? I warn you... today they come for the "Battle Flag", and "Dixie", tomorrow it is "Columbus Day" and eventually it is "Old Glory".

When they are through with us, they will turn on you, these people who revile us. They will call for a new flag, reparations, and you will be made to pay dearly for the sins of your fathers, just as we are being ask to.

You will be ask to denounce your great grand fathers and Uncles and even the founding fathers as racists men with no character. It will be your history books that are revised and sanitized to fit the PC crowd, It is happening already.

My views and convictions are the front line defense to preserve your views and convictions, can't you see that?

[rightofrush]

Another dumbass yankee who doesn't know anything not is his HS history text book.

[billbears]

But he is clearly on the record favoring black equality and black suffrage later in the war.

Walt!!! Finally you got it!!! Later in the war. By late 1862, lincoln had lost the support from his other avenues and HAD to turn to the abolitionists(even though he IS quoted as not wanting to be painted with the 'abolitionist brush' in 1860). He picked up their chant and black equality and black suffrage became his rallying cry ONLY AFTER Sept 22,1862, the date the Emancipation Proclamation was released!! Before that time, he could have cared less for the slave. It was over taxation plain and simple. But that tack only worked so long. So he had to pick up something else to chant over the masses. Slavery!!

The abolition movement was small at best in 1860, and as you can see by most of your northern papers, was not a major issue until 1863