Simplistic.
Too, the quote you provide doesn't support your statement; it was not 'unrepealable"; it was left to the states. Big difference. You might want to re-read the proposed amendment.
Now, Lincoln, as I as say, among his many gifts, was a pragmatic man. He knew that if slavery were limited to the areas where it existed and was not allowed to expand into other states and terrtories, it would ultimately die. The slave holders knew that too, and they said as much:
"Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by al1 the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of those rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars."
--Jefferson Davis
Your statement that Lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure is simply NOT supported in the record.
Walt
It's certainly nowhere near as simplistic as your historically oblivious presentation of Lincoln as a great opponent of slavery.
Too, the quote you provide doesn't support your statement;
I beg to differ for reasons noted (see previous post where I specifically outlined elements of Lincoln's quote while detailing what they referred to). As for your above assertion seeing as you have done nothing to demonstrate why what you assert is so, I need only point out quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
: it was not 'unrepealable"
To the contrary. The amendment's authors specifically wrote it to be established as an unamendable amendment. Yes, there is some question as to if and to what degree they could prevent themselves from passing a second amendment altering it, but in its intent and original form, the amendment was said to be unrepealable.
it was left to the states.
Insofar as the government specifically could not impose a ban on slavery on any of the states.
You might want to re-read the proposed amendment.
I've already read it repeatedly. I do advise you to take your own advice though.
Now, Lincoln, as I as say, among his many gifts, was a pragmatic man. He knew that if slavery were limited to the areas where it existed and was not allowed to expand into other states and terrtories, it would ultimately die.
Ultimately it sure would have. But unfortunately for your cause, his little amendment would have prolongued that quite a bit. Go read it again. It prevents the government from interfering with the domestic institutions of any state with no further stipulation. Under any reasonable reading, this must be taken to apply unconditionally to any state so, for example, if, say, Arizona came into the union and then decided it wanted to be a slave state, the congress could not have done one thing to stop it because doing so would have been in interference "with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, your argument that simply containing slavery to the existing slave states was Lincoln's goal fails you, as his amendment does not do that.
Your statement that Lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure is simply NOT supported in the record.
Ah, I see you are skilled at jousting with scarecrows, as that is not what I said. I said specifically: "The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."
There's a BIG difference between that and saying "lincoln only opposed slavery because of the war." Even you must admit that much. And considering that Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed...and perhaps even then some...as demonstrated for his prominent public support of an amendment that did exactly that, I think it is safe to say that my comment was perfectly legitimate and accurate.