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 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: References: <2e5n3j1u9a0pdcmpd4m78l2dssq3kns552@4ax.com> <7Ya3O.2266$gKW1.1925@fx13.iad> 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 Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 614FF229870; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:49:02 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D93322986E for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:49:00 -0400 (EDT) by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1s9vht-000000002dT-3Ns0; Thu, 23 May 2024 01:49:18 +0200 by nntpmail01.iad.omicronmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E91E1E1453 for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 23:49:07 +0000 (UTC) id A0EC422801EF; Wed, 22 May 2024 23:49:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Path: fx17.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail In-Reply-To: X-Original-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroups-download.com X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 23:49:07 UTC 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 ==========