Amy has given me permission to post our private correspondence.

Amy L. Wrote: Dear David,

Thank you for your comment on the Forum.
I hope you do not mind that I send a message privately, but... I do not follow the intent of the quote in relation to my supposition. I must unfortunately have it clearly spelled out to follow.

Are you inferring that because Lincoln refers directly to Slavery, that he did not shirk from Abolitionist intent? (He was a different man after some time in the presidency than at the time of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.)

(The 2nd Inaugural is so moving; although read several times, it doesn't lose its power to stir.)

Best regards,
Amy

I responded thereto as follows:

Amy,

You stated in your post that Lincoln "was fine to let [slavery] stay where it was . . . ."

I disagree with that portion of your statement.

I made the following post on the anniversary of President Lincoln’s birthday in 2016. (Post #36 at Books over 15,000 to Discuss; Thirteenth Amendment.)

Senator John B. Alley, in “Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time,” Allen Thorndike Rice, 1888, pp. 573-591, [made some] interesting observations regarding the character of Abraham Lincoln. In one passage at page 577, Senator Alley said: “In small and unimportant matters, Mr. Lincoln was so yielding that many thought his excessive amiability was born of weakness. But, in matters of vital importance, he was as firm as a rock.” On page 582-83, Senator Alley also stated: “No man was ever more thoroughly imbued with the conviction of the wickedness and cruelty of slavery than Mr. Lincoln.” [End of quotation from Comment.]

After Lincoln became President and took the oath of office, he immediately had the power to pardon those persons convicted of federal crimes. A petition was sent to Senator Alley from the city of Newburyport, in the Congressman’s district, numerously signed, praying the President to pardon a man in jail in that city.

He had been convicted of commanding a vessel engaged in the slave-trade, and was sentenced to several years’ imprisonment and a fine of one thousand dollars. He had served out his term of imprisonment, but he could not pay his fine. The petition was accompanied by a letter, from the prisoner, to the President, and by a request that I would present the petition and letter to Mr. Lincoln in person. The letter contained an urgent and pathetic appeal for pardon, acknowledging the crime and the justice of the sentence, and declaring that he must spend his life in prison if the condition of freedom was the payment of that fine, for he had not a cent in the world. The President read the letter and petition, and remarked: “I believe I am kindly enough in nature and can be moved to pity and to pardon the perpetrator of almost the worst crime that mind of man can conceive or the arm of man can execute; but any man, who, for paltry gain and stimulated only by avarice, can rob African of her children to sell into interminable bondage, I never will pardon, and he may stay and rot in jail before he will ever get relief from me.” (“Reminiscences,” Chapter XXXII, p. 583.)

Amy, you state in the same sentence of your thread post: “Lincoln refused the label of Abolitionist.”

Abolishment of slavery would be a “King’s cure” and Abraham Lincoln would be (if elected) only the President of the United States, not King.

The Presidential oath of office reads: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

President Lincoln explained his “constitutional” actions during his term in office regarding the issue of abolishment of slavery to Mr. George Thompson, the English anti-slavery orator, on the morning of April 7, 1864 at the White House, following Mr. Thompson’s address in the House of Representatives the previous day to a large audience with President Lincoln in attendance:

"Mr. Thompson, the people of Great Britain and of other foreign governments were in one great error in reference to this conflict. They seemed to think that, the moment I was President, I had the power to abolish slavery, forgetting that, before I could have any power whatever, I had to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and execute the laws as I found them. When the Rebellion broke out, my duty did not admit of a question. That was, first, by all strictly lawful means to endeavor to maintain the integrity of the government. I did not consider that I had a right to touch the 'State' institution of 'Slavery' until all other measures for restoring the Union had failed. The paramount idea of the constitution is the preservation of the Union. It may not be specified in so many words, but that this was the idea of its founders is evident; for, without the Union, the constitution would be worthless. It seems clear, then, that in the last extremity, if any local institution threatened the existence of the Union, the Executive could not hesitate as to his duty. In our case, the moment came when I felt that slavery must die that the nation might live!" (Six Months at the White House, F.B. Carpenter, Chapter XXIV, p. 76 (1879).)

According to Doris Kearns Goodwin, as a Republican candidate for President, Lincoln “crafted” his Cooper Union Address regarding the issue of slavery which was logically consistent with the history of the Constitution, appropriate to the circumstances at the time, and in keeping with his own perception of the constitutional powers of the Presidency:

Lincoln had labored to craft his address for many weeks, extensively researching the attitudes of the founding gathers toward slavery. He took as the text for his discourse a speech in which Senator Douglas has said of slavery: “Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.” Fully endorsing this statement, Lincoln examined the beliefs and actions of the founders, concluding that they had marked slavery “as an evil not be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity.” (Team of Rivals, page 231.)

Amy, I should have prefaced my post in response to your post with these statements . . . but I am just too lazy and a very poor typist. I hope that all of this has made sense to you. If you have any additional questions on this or a related subject, please let me know.

Yours truly,
David

On July 23, 2019, The Washington Post reported:

President Trump believes the Constitution gives him a wide breadth of power. That’s the message he delivered ― not for the first time — on Tuesday while addressing a crowd of teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington.

There are numerous viral video clips from Trump’s 80-minute speech at the conference, but one of the most controversial moments came as he discussed Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the president.

“Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president. But I don’t even talk about that.”

Article II grants the president “executive power.” It does not indicate the president has total power. Article II is the same part of the Constitution that describes some of Congress’s oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency. It also details how the president may be removed from office via impeachment.

(Story was titled “While bemoaning Mueller probe, Trump falsely says the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever I want’”)

IMO, in the years before his presidency, Lincoln was never a "public" abolitionist. He really did not want to be associated with the abolitionists. He was astute politically and thought being part of the abolitionist movement would adversely effect his electability. I have read various estimates of the percentage of the population who were abolitionists, and most estimates are in the range of 5% to 10%, with some as low as 2%. IMO, if Lincoln had come out as an abolitionist, Seward would have been nominated for the presidency in 1860.

So, for me, the question is, "Was Lincoln a "private" abolitionist before his presidency? Looking at many of his quotes it's certainly possible to think so, but I really cannot say for 100% certain. At least some books say Lincoln became an abolitionist only during his presidency (in other words, a change from his thoughts from the 1840s and 1850s), but whether what was in his heart all along really changed I do not know.

(01-16-2020 05:05 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  So, for me, the question is, "Was Lincoln a "private" abolitionist before his presidency? Looking at many of his quotes it's certainly possible to think so, but I really cannot say for 100% certain. At least some books say Lincoln became an abolitionist only during his presidency (in other words, a change from his thoughts from the 1840s and 1850s), but whether what was in his heart all along really changed I do not know.

I take Abraham Lincoln at his word.

As I understand, Lincoln was out of politics until the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

To repeat:Lincoln had labored to craft his [Cooper Union] address for many weeks, extensively researching the attitudes of the founding fathers toward slavery. He took as the text for his discourse a speech in which Senator Douglas had said of slavery: “Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.” Fully endorsing this statement, Lincoln examined the beliefs and actions of the founders, concluding that they had marked slavery “as an evil not be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity.” (Team of Rivals, page 231.)

The following is from Abraham Lincoln Online - Speeches and Writing - Cooper Union Address, New York, New York, February 27, 1860:

Herndon, who knew the speech but was not present, said it was "devoid of all rhetorical imagery." Rather, "it was constructed with a view to accuracy of statement, simplicity of language, and unity of thought. In some respects like a lawyer's brief, it was logical, temperate in tone, powerful -- irresistibly driving conviction home to men's reasons and their souls."

With a deft touch, Lincoln exposed the roots of sectional strife and the inconsistent positions of Senator Stephen Douglas and Chief Justice Roger Taney. He urged fellow Republicans not to capitulate to Southern demands to recognize slavery as being right, but to "stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively."

The speech reads in part:

What is the frame of government under which we live?

The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which the present government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better than we do now?"

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory.

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."

Question: Was President-elect Abraham Lincoln an abolitionist? IMO, the answer is no.

Here is the text of a letter Lincoln wrote to Alexander H. Stephens on December 22, 1860:


For your own eye only

Hon. A. H. Stephens-

My dear Sir

Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

The South would be in no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

Yours very truly

A. LINCOLN

To me the key words are, "You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted." IMO, if Lincoln were an abolitionist at this time, the word "restricted" would instead be "eradicated." Although he was against slavery, he seemed to feel there would be a gradual and perhaps voluntary end to slavery as opposed to an immediate abolition. In other words, it would die out on its own.

Thus, IMO, President-elect Lincoln was not an abolitionist. I think he became one later on, but not in 1860.

In my opinion, President Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist, on a personal moral level, long before he was President of the United States.

It was probably a Herndon book where I read about Lincoln's first direct major encounter with slavery. It was his reaction to seeing several black slaves chained together while being transported on board a river boat. And, I do not know, whether it was before or after this event, that Lincoln was almost killed by slaves attacking his flatboat at night after it was tied up along a Mississippi River plantation.

I forget the details of the story of young black man from Springfield who went to New Orleans (I believe) without the proper documentation that he was a free black person. He was arrested. And, if his fine was not paid, he would be sold into slavery. I believe that Lincoln went personally to the Louisiana Governor to plead the case, but to no avail. Lincoln then went to the Illinois Governor whose response was to the effect that there was nothing he could do as Governor. I believe that Lincoln and Herndon paid the young black boy's fine and he returned to Springfield.

So, in a personal sense, I believe it is appropriate to argue that Lincoln was an abolitionist.

But as President, Lincoln honored his Oath of Office and held fast to the belief and conviction that the highest authority of law in the United States was the Constitution.

(01-19-2020 12:23 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  In my opinion, President Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist, on a personal moral level, long before he was President of the United States.

David, although what I wrote above may seem otherwise, I agree with you (re: personal moral level).

(01-19-2020 01:45 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:23 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  In my opinion, President Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist, on a personal moral level, long before he was President of the United States.

David, although what I wrote above may seem otherwise, I agree with you (re: personal moral level).

I am glad that you made this post. I thought that there may have been some distinct measure of daylight between our views on the subject.

President Lincoln wanted passage of the Thirteenth Amendment very much; he was justifiably concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court would invalidate the Emancipation Proclamation.

Ironically, he referred to the Congressional approval and the anticipation of the requisite number of states ratifying the amendment as a "King's cure." President Lincoln did not live to see the completion of the constitutional process (Article V). But, he must have been very pleased that Illinois was the first state to ratify the amendment.

There was a question posed in post #4 of this thread:

Was Lincoln an abolitionist?

I felt that in order to effectively answer the question, the term “abolitionist” ought to be defined. I had my own idea of a definition of the term and an answer to the question came to me pretty quickly. But I didn’t think using my own definition was good enough. So before I shared my answer, I wanted to see what the historical community had to say related to the definition of this term. I did a little research and some leg work and was able to find some definitions from what I thought were credible sources that helped me clarify my own thoughts on the subject.

In their book on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Rodney O. Davis and Douglas L. Wilson gave a somewhat broad, overview definition of “abolitionism” as “A belief that slavery should be ended by legal prohibition.” They did not discuss his time as President (only the period they were focused on, the time of the debates) but went on to say that Lincoln “…though antislavery, was not an abolitionist. He was distinguished from abolitionists in that he acknowledged slavery’s protected status under the Constitution, and the Constitution’s provision for a fugitive slave law.”

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, in his book The Struggle for Equality, defined abolitionists as “…those Americans who before the Civil War agitated for immediate, unconditional, and universal abolition of slavery in the United States.” The descriptors used in this definition all become critical in my eyes when trying to determine if Lincoln was an abolitionist.

More recently I had the opportunity to listen to an excellent lecture presented by Dr. Manisha Sinha, author of the recent book The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition. Afterwards, I had a brief opportunity to speak with her. I asked her if she agreed with Dr. McPherson’s definition of “abolitionists”. She said that generally she did but that she felt it did not go quite far enough. She said that she would also add that an abolitionist was someone who publicly advocated or “agitated” for racial equality – not just an end to slavery.

I should also note that the lecture that Dr. Sinha presented was titled, “Allies for Emancipation: Lincoln and the Abolitionists.” From the title of her talk, there is right away a distinction made between Lincoln and the abolitionists. She discussed various points including the one Davis and Wilson stated above. She gave other examples of Lincoln’s deviation from the tenants of abolitionism from his time as President. My interpretation or take away from her lecture was that it was in fact important that Lincoln was not an abolitionist as it better positioned him to eventually contribute in a material way to ending slavery.

Though not exactly the same, my own definition was very similar to what this group of historians/authors (all of whom have studied the subject farm more extensively than I) have advanced.

Based on my own previous thoughts along with being further informed by the research I did and the definitions I found, my answer to the question is no. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He was certainly anti-slavery (more so than the majority of his contemporaries), but not an abolitionist.

I agree with you, Scott. And, IMO, Dr. Manisha Sinha's definition of an abolitionist provides further evidence that Lincoln was not one (publicly, anyway). In his last public address Lincoln said, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." Lincoln was not one who "publicly advocated or 'agitated' for racial equality" when it came to voting rights.