"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel."-April 1864.
Lincoln spoke nearly identically in September 1859 (slavery "morally wrong") and used variations of the word "hate" to characterize his personal feelings in October 1854 and July 1858.
Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860 was the proximate cause of secession. South Carolina seceded on December 20 and by the time of the new president's inauguration six other states had joined in a "confederacy." The new nation's constitution was adopted one week after Lincoln's inauguration. The Union was gone before Abraham Lincoln had the power to stop it.
Yet, in his address at the first inauguration, Lincoln said:
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. [Then, quoting himself] I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Extraordinary.
The statements quoted above are not in direct conflict, it is true. "Slavery is not wrong" would be in direct conflict with the first. Yet...it is mind-boggling...How extraordinary that the same man could make both statements, and make them repeatedly, for though not in direct conflict the statements are...inconsistent, may we say that? They are not consistent; it does not follow that the same man would make the one statement and then the other. As a forensic matter it is not cogent argument for the same man to make both statements.
A man making both of those statements must abstract away from morality in order to keep them from direct conflict. Only by removing himself in the second from the morality he expressed in the first can a man keep both in the same mind. That is what Lincoln did. It may be when one abstracts that far away that one is also removed from reality: "Apprehension seems to exist..." ? The confederacy existed at the time. Yet, Lincoln insisted, here and for the duration of his life, that the South had not seceded, that that government in Richmond was not a government, that Jefferson Davis was not the president of that government, that those soldiers in gray were not soldiers of that government. Lincoln insisted, like Steve Martin when his girlfriend told him, "It's over, get it into your head!" that there were "so many interpretations." Lincoln insisted in his first inaugural address that the old Union, with slavery, could yet be saved. Five weeks later forces of the non-existent Confederate States of America attacked Ft. Sumter.
Throughout the first half of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln saw closet Unionists everywhere in the South where others saw only apparitions. He lavished particular easy-handed consideration on Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland and Missouri, avoiding crossing their territory if possible, throwing bushels of carrots their way, enraging and discouraging Radical abolitionists who would have been his shock troops in total war--which would come!--and removing generals like Fremont when he issued his own emancipation order, and Butler, for his ill-temper toward "ladies of the town" who abused U.S. troops in occupied New Orleans. He reappointed Democrat George McClellan
Commanding General of the Army of the Potomac when he knew the Young Napoleon wouldn't fight, knew that McClellan hated him (and would run for president against Lincoln in 1864). Lincoln abandoned his anti-slavery morality as a causus belli in favor of appeasement. "So many interpretations." Lincoln chased a chimera until 1864 when he finally appointed Ulysses S. Grant Lieutenant General. Grant had been available, he was ready, and he would fight. But Lincoln had called upon others. It was a lost three years. In those years, it was the Radicals, the righteously moral abolitionists, who were the real pragmatists in war-making.
Lincoln spoke nearly identically in September 1859 (slavery "morally wrong") and used variations of the word "hate" to characterize his personal feelings in October 1854 and July 1858.
Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860 was the proximate cause of secession. South Carolina seceded on December 20 and by the time of the new president's inauguration six other states had joined in a "confederacy." The new nation's constitution was adopted one week after Lincoln's inauguration. The Union was gone before Abraham Lincoln had the power to stop it.
Yet, in his address at the first inauguration, Lincoln said:
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. [Then, quoting himself] I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Extraordinary.
The statements quoted above are not in direct conflict, it is true. "Slavery is not wrong" would be in direct conflict with the first. Yet...it is mind-boggling...How extraordinary that the same man could make both statements, and make them repeatedly, for though not in direct conflict the statements are...inconsistent, may we say that? They are not consistent; it does not follow that the same man would make the one statement and then the other. As a forensic matter it is not cogent argument for the same man to make both statements.
A man making both of those statements must abstract away from morality in order to keep them from direct conflict. Only by removing himself in the second from the morality he expressed in the first can a man keep both in the same mind. That is what Lincoln did. It may be when one abstracts that far away that one is also removed from reality: "Apprehension seems to exist..." ? The confederacy existed at the time. Yet, Lincoln insisted, here and for the duration of his life, that the South had not seceded, that that government in Richmond was not a government, that Jefferson Davis was not the president of that government, that those soldiers in gray were not soldiers of that government. Lincoln insisted, like Steve Martin when his girlfriend told him, "It's over, get it into your head!" that there were "so many interpretations." Lincoln insisted in his first inaugural address that the old Union, with slavery, could yet be saved. Five weeks later forces of the non-existent Confederate States of America attacked Ft. Sumter.
Throughout the first half of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln saw closet Unionists everywhere in the South where others saw only apparitions. He lavished particular easy-handed consideration on Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland and Missouri, avoiding crossing their territory if possible, throwing bushels of carrots their way, enraging and discouraging Radical abolitionists who would have been his shock troops in total war--which would come!--and removing generals like Fremont when he issued his own emancipation order, and Butler, for his ill-temper toward "ladies of the town" who abused U.S. troops in occupied New Orleans. He reappointed Democrat George McClellan
Commanding General of the Army of the Potomac when he knew the Young Napoleon wouldn't fight, knew that McClellan hated him (and would run for president against Lincoln in 1864). Lincoln abandoned his anti-slavery morality as a causus belli in favor of appeasement. "So many interpretations." Lincoln chased a chimera until 1864 when he finally appointed Ulysses S. Grant Lieutenant General. Grant had been available, he was ready, and he would fight. But Lincoln had called upon others. It was a lost three years. In those years, it was the Radicals, the righteously moral abolitionists, who were the real pragmatists in war-making.
