Article <Tvv3O.4844$9xU7.3851@fx17.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<Tvv3O.4844$9xU7.3851@fx17.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lincoln's Letter to the Editor of the N,Y, Tribune
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 19:49:06 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 147
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <Tvv3O.4844$9xU7.3851@fx17.iad>
References: <dsbc2jhon7ontdokugvdfg6tedrqnkntq4@4ax.com>
 <2e5n3j1u9a0pdcmpd4m78l2dssq3kns552@4ax.com>
 <c_P_N.74962$Y79f.10441@fx16.iad>
 <jron3j1cooa42dl583dk20gdkrrbl9062p@4ax.com>
 <csc%N.84268$Fmd1.77811@fx13.iad>
 <b0a6b3fd5d8e2f856b679be8a5abac97@www.novabbs.com>
 <QCv%N.3420$ba_5.1143@fx46.iad> <v1mmha$1qkje$1@dont-email.me>
 <od80O.96910$Y79f.56636@fx16.iad> <v1rt30$37idl$1@dont-email.me>
 <Jlj0O.81917$P_e7.80417@fx09.iad> <v1t7if$3gn8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1tqs5$3lbht$1@dont-email.me> <v1ud09$3p9v6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1v82c$2lf7$1@dont-email.me> <UpT0O.21822$HJr3.2183@fx41.iad>
 <v2545h$1jstq$1@dont-email.me> <Nxe2O.5475$29Ia.5345@fx13.iad>
 <gt-cnWiOPNqCGtT7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <y1v2O.14117$lp3b.1485@fx14.iad>
 <IM6dnY1sUYJQO9f7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <k2M2O.20762$lp3b.4009@fx14.iad> <7Ya3O.2266$gKW1.1925@fx13.iad>
 <FuidnW9cdJE5zND7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <FSr3O.359$GO14.322@fx35.iad>
 <v8udnac7_9Vu4tP7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="60167"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <v8udnac7_9Vu4tP7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 10647

John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/22/24 12:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 5/21/24 5:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I do not doubt that slavery was a cause of the US Civil War,
>>>
>>> What other causes do you imagine there were?
>>>
>>>> but it was President Lincoln's expressed primary objective as he 
>>>> wrote to the editor of the New York Tribune was to Preserve the 
>>>> Union. It was the South's fear that Lincoln would free the slaves, 
>>>> but it appears, based on the letter he wrote  to the editor of the 
>>>> New York newspaper, that this was a misjudgement by the South of 
>>>> Lincoln and his objective.
>>>
>>> I told you to stop digging. Lincoln was elected on a platform of 
>>> preventing the spread of slavery to new states and territories. The 
>>> southern ruling class rightly saw that this would eventually result 
>>> in free states dominating Congress and thus in the end of slavery. 
>>  >
>> That was the fear, but it's questionable that the South would have 
>> respected the outlawing of slavery and just surrendered it up. Given 
>> Lincoln's letter almost two years after the start of the war, chances 
>> are slavery would have persisted throughout the Lincoln Presidency. 
>> So, the misunderstanding of Lincoln's intent instigated secession 
>> which in turn brought on the war and so, the preservation of the union 
>> was Lincoln's expressed and sole objective for the struggle it was not 
>> slavery if his words to the editor of the NY newspaper in 1862 are 
>> accepted as honest.
> 
> This is yet another personal fantasy of yours. Now it's fairly likely 
> that slavery would have persisted through Lincoln's Presidency absent 
> secession, but it would have been under increasing restriction. If 
> nothing else, Lincoln's appointments to the Supreme Court would likely 
> have reversed the Dred Scott decision, and Congress would probably have 
> repealed the Fugitive Slave Act. And there would likely have been the 
> addition of new free states to Congress as well as the effect of the 
> 1860 census on representation. I suspect that abolitionism would have 
> gained much ground too.
> 
> This letter you keep harping on is irrelevant to anything except the 
> conduct of the war that in your hypothetical scenario didn't happen.
> 
>>> Lincoln's goal was the eventual elimination of slavery, but after 
>>> secession he considered restoration of the Union more immediately 
>>> important.
>> <
>>   His words to the editor suggest otherwise. But he did not favor 
>> slavery.
> 
> You understand nothing of this.
> 
>>>> The institution had existed f0r over 2 centuries in the South, the 
>>>> question is would there have
>>>> been war had the South _n0t_ succeeded? The succession of Carolina 
>>>> followed by the attack on Ft. Sumter started the Civil War.
>>>
>>> Of course there wouldn't have been ware without secession. What are 
>>> you blathering about?
>>>
>>>> I had read, believed and defended the opinion that unfair tariffs 
>>>> imposed on the South was the main cause of the war, but this was 
>>>> proven wrong, in spite of the cites on the net advocating this fraud.
>>>
>>> Only one of your cites advocated that. The rest merely mentioned both 
>>> "tariff" and "Civil War" without proposing any connection between the 
>>> two. Did you even read them?
>>>
>>>> Lincoln's Letter to the editor of the New York Newspaper was written 
>>>> 1n August 22, 1862,  ab0ut a year and a half after the start of the 
>>>> War between the States:
>>>>
>>>> Picture
>>>> Mathew Brady Photographs of Civil War-Era Personalities and Scenes, 
>>>> National Archives and Records Administration
>>>> Hon. Horace Greely: Executive Mansion,
>>>> Dear Sir Washington, August 22, 1862.
>>>>
>>>> I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the 
>>>> New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions 
>>>> of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, 
>>>> controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may 
>>>> believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against 
>>>> them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial 
>>>> tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have 
>>>> always supposed to be right.
>>>> As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not 
>>>> meant to leave any one in doubt.
>>>> I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the 
>>>> Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the 
>>>> nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those 
>>>> who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time 
>>>> save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would 
>>>> not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy 
>>>> slavery, I do not agree with them. 
>>>> _My_paramount_object_in_this_struggle_is_to_ save_ the_ Union_, and 
>>>> is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the 
>>>> Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save 
>>>> it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it 
>>>> by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What 
>>>> I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it 
>>>> helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do 
>>>> not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less 
>>>> whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I 
>>>> shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the 
>>>> cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I 
>>>> shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
>>>> I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; 
>>>> and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that 
>>>> all men every where could be free. Yours,
>>>> A. LINCOLN
>>>>
>>>> http://lincolnandemancipation.weebly.com/letter-to-horace-greeley-1862.html 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever do you possibly think that had to do with the cause of the 
>>> Civil War? You're just digging your hole deeper and deeper.
>>>
>> I think you and I are talking past each other, saying the same thing.
> 
> We are not.
> 
>> We agree the secession was the immediate cause of the war between the 
>> states. The south feared a change was just over the horizon and sought 
>> to  preserve slavery by separating from the Union. But this failing 
>> was the result of the South's misunderstanding of Lincoln's expressed 
>> intent.
> 
> There was no misunderstanding.
 >
I disagree. The south thought Lincoln was going to end slavery, but that 
was not his expressed objective. Did you read the letter I referenced?
> 
>> As I said, had the South not engaged in secession slavery probably 
>> would have preserved until it became unprofitable. I was surprised to 
>> find that most southerners were not slave owners. Ever wonder why 
>> Lincoln did not propose to buy the slaves then grant them freedom.
> 
> Compensated emancipation was definitely on the table. The clear reason 
> that Lincoln never proposed it was that he was in the middle of a war, 
> though if I recall it was proposed as a solution for Maryland and 
> Kentucky. How is any of that relevant?
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========