Actually, there are others where Lincoln uses terminology other than tariff. I've only had time to search briefly, but things like revenue collection, duties, and variations of the word protect are mentioned in other Lincoln works. A major theme with him was during the secession crisis, where Lincoln repeatedly spoke and wrote of the need to "collect the duties" or "collect the revenues" of seceding states. The theme continued into the war, where all of his blockade writings and speeches emphasized the same point over and over and over. The reason he kept giving was that secession had impeded the collection of duties on foreign imports. We can suppose that, in light of the fact that tariffs had just been hiked to the highest level in decades, this meant significant revenue. I'll have to spend some time, but can pull them and post them if you like.
I also find it interesting that the new haven speech is the only one I know of where Lincoln even comes close to the assertion that the tariff issue should be set aside to address the slavery issue.
All of the letters have him advocating the tariff in various degrees. Some are direct and open, others he stands behind the tariff plank of the platform. Some have him expressing hopes that he will be able to do so politically in the near future. Add the Pittsburgh speech, where he advocates in no less than direct terms the taking up of the issue as a major priority in congress, and it becomes clear that Lincoln was not willing to simply let the issue drop to address the slavery one.
All I can say is, not to me.
I, starting out attributing neither great vice nor great virtue to Lincoln and reading what you and rdf put up, see a man who says that he approves of the kind of tariffs you discuss and that if the opportunity should present itself he would press for them. Further, the party that nominated him has a tariff plank and he does not disavow it.
But in the letters rdf put up he seems to say that he does not see success with the tariffs until those who are currently opposed to them should cease to be so.
You offer: "I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesed in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us."
That shows that Lincoln likes tariffs. Tariffs - terrif. You continue:
In other words, Lincoln first says he's an old tariff Whig whose views have not changed. Next he advocates implementing a tariff, yet not a word about it no longer being his agenda or anything of the sort.
I'm sorry that does not seem to be an advocation of implementation. He merely says again that he things they're good.As I tried to say, I can like something and wish for it, and not be ready to take steps to get it. If I win the lottery, then a Ferrari goes on the agenda. If political situation changes, then tariffs go back on the agenda.
You continue:
The letter continues, again immediately from where the previous quote left off, with a comment on the political viability of the issue.
"Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it."
That sounds to me like he's taking it off the agenda. Reviving the issue now won't work. It remains a long term goal but nothing he wants to work toward at the time of writing. It's not on the list of things to do right now.
You continue describing and quoting how Lincoln imagines and hopes, in essence, that sooner or later the issue could be added to the agenda; and you write:
I think it is safe to add that at this future point, Lincoln would not have hesitated to take up the tariff issue, ....
In other words, he might put it back on the agenda later.
I was mistaken about the MENTION of slavery, but I still maintain that that was the issue that pushed the tariff off the agenda.
The reason I say the tariff issue and its merits are irrelevant is that I notice that these threads tend to wander from the lousy way DiLorenzo supports his thesis to the thesis itself. From here it looks like the argument about Lincoln is a convenient distraction from the discussion of DiLorenzo's scholarship.
Actually, Ferrier's own source conceded that the 1857 thing was an error originally made by a secondary source that DiLorenzo cited.
My point exactly.
With no sources to hand and little time to search them, had I any, I made an error. When it was pointed out. I noted it. When my language was misunderstood as making an accusation against you, I clarified and expressed regret for the infelicity of my expression. DiLorenzo describes his shelf of 60 or so volumes (as I recall) of books about Lincoln. I missed the time, if any, when he took responsibility for his errors. I think I stand up against him pretty well.