And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.
I refer you back to what I said earlier:
"From 1854 to his nomination for the presidency in 1860, as James McPherson noted in his DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, "the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery as a vital first step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction." In those years he gave approximately 175 political speeches. McPherson notes that the "central message of these speeches showed Lincoln to be a "one-issue" man - the issue being slavery." Thus, Lincoln's nomination to the presidency was based on a principled opposition to slavery on moral grounds, and that position was clear to voters both in the South and the North."
Lincoln worked for the gradual elimination of slavery well before the war.
I see you pass over what I said about Lincoln vs Lee. Lincoln undertook, well before the war, "governmental actions" to use your phrase, to attack slavery.
It simply is not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance with the coming of the war, and you cannot torture the record into supporting such a position.
Now, Lincoln faced, on his very first day in office, a gigantic rebellion against the lawful government. The insurgent area covered seven states. Lincoln didn't want war. That is one thing you've shown with your stressing this proposed 13th amendment. You have shown that Lincoln was willing to bend over backwards to avoid war. So thanks for bringing that out.
On the other hand, as he made very clear in his first inaugural address he was definitely going to maintain the Union at all hazards. And that is pretty much what happened.
Of course this segue of yours does show us one thing: You want to hold Lincoln to some impossible standard, to take him out of a real situation, dealing with real events and real people. Lincoln did a masterful job of holding the country together. He brought the ship of state home safe and sound and we can all thank him for that, can't we?
Walt
And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.
I beg to differ, as does the record, for that is what I said and not something else as you attributed to me in your straw man.
I refer you back to what I said earlier: "From 1854 to his nomination for the presidency in 1860, as James McPherson noted in his DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, "the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery as a vital first step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction." In those years he gave approximately 175 political speeches. McPherson notes that the "central message of these speeches showed Lincoln to be a "one-issue" man - the issue being slavery."
That's nice and all but (1) I really don't care what somebody else said about lincoln - I care what lincoln said himself and (2) what lincoln said himself throughout his political career clearly demonstrates him taking positions all over the radar screen with regards to slavery: from openly expressing an enthusiastic willingness to tolerate it in the form of a constitutional amendment (see lincoln's first inaugural) to abolishing all together it in certain places (see emancipation proclaimation). No ammount of quoting a secondary source's authority will ever get you around the realities evident in primary sources, and the realities evident in primary sources from lincoln, and even so in strictly his major speeches, indicate that he took more than one position on slavery, and that those positions were (a) not always consistent with each other and (b) not always indicative of the abolitionist viewpoint many incorrectly attribute to lincoln.
Lincoln worked for the gradual elimination of slavery well before the war.
In some cases, yes he did. But in some sense, so did Robert E. Lee. What you leave out though is also important. While at times prior to the war lincoln worked for elimination of slavery, at other times prior to the war including in his inaugural address, he openly advocated a measure that would have prolongued and perpetuated slavery free from government inferference indefinately.
I see you pass over what I said about Lincoln vs Lee.
No. You do not "see" because if you did "see" you would have no other option than to concede that I rebutted what you said about lincoln v. lee point by point while also offering to you several questions, all of which go unanswered, pertaining to your bizarre assertion that lee was paying "lip service" to some unknown persons when he stated his slavery position.
Lincoln undertook, well before the war, "governmental actions" to use your phrase, to attack slavery.
That's nice, but it still does not get you past the fact I have noted, namely that Lincoln ALSO undertook, before the war, governmental actions that would have perpetuated slavery. I have already given a solid example of what one of those actions was and need not go into repetition over it. If you do not know what I am referring to, you have only yourself to blame.
It simply is not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance with the coming of the war,
1. Your straw man has already been noted above. I advise that you cease repeating it as it gains you nothing other than dishonesty.
2. Even so in regards to what you said, quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
and you cannot torture the record into supporting such a position.
I cannot torture the record as, unlike you, I do not need to torture the record to support my position. The record is clear as day regarding my position. On the other hand, you have done nothing but torture the record in search of lincoln quotes that support your position while you simultaneously and, IMHO, willfully ignore those quotes that contradict your opinion. That is called torturing the record, and that is what you are doing.
Now, Lincoln faced, on his very first day in office, a gigantic rebellion against the lawful government.
Did he? Jefferson Davis no more wanted to conquer New York than did George Washington want to conquer Cornwall. Lincoln faced, at best, a war with a faction of his nation that sought political independence from the rest of that nation, and did so through the consent and actions of their own lawfully elected officials.
The insurgent area covered seven states.
I would extend it beyond that, as practically every state in the confederacy experienced wartime action in addition to the border union states.
Lincoln didn't want war.
If that is the case, why did he order warships to forcefully reinforce sumter and defend it?
That is one thing you've shown with your stressing this proposed 13th amendment. You have shown that Lincoln was willing to bend over backwards to avoid war.
Was it bending over backwards though? On a similar note, I could just as easily apply reasoning along the lines of that you make above and note that, despite a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the continuation of slavery, the southern states continued forth with secession. This would seem to suggest that there had to be something more to it than just slavery, because if it was just slavery at issue, the south could have stayed in the union and had that issue resolved with an amendment protecting it as well as its installation in any new state that wanted it.
On the other hand, as he made very clear in his first inaugural address he was definitely going to maintain the Union at all hazards. And that is pretty much what happened.
Yes it did, and at a very high cost in the number of lives, resources, cities, and just about everything else.
Of course this segue of yours does show us one thing: You want to hold Lincoln to some impossible standard
I would beg to differ and in fact offer that it is you, not I, who seeks to hold Lincoln to such a standard. I have no problem noting the historical presence of Lincoln's flaws, including those in his position of slavery. You on the other hand turn highly defensive upon even the slightest suggestion, no matter how factual it may be, by anybody to the effect that Lincoln was anything less than some sort of all-good abolitionist diety. That is why you cannot even bring yourself to concede the fact that Lincoln's position as set forth in his first inaugural was far less slave-friendly than many suggest despite the fact that you have a prominently recorded direct quotation indicating just that.
Lincoln did a masterful job of holding the country together. He brought the ship of state home safe and sound and we can all thank him for that, can't we?
Yeah. Too bad that ship had its masts blown off of it, half of its passengers tossed overboard along the route, its cargo consumed, and its hull pierced with leaks when it arrived back in the harbor.