Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Christian · (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 10:58 AM by Christian.)

Thanks so much - I hope you like it!

(10-06-2015 07:11 PM)LincolnMan Wrote: This is an important book. Welcome and thank you for sharing with us.

I think Lincoln's values were inextricably linked with his feelings about the wrongness of slavery ("If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.") so in that sense, yes. But Lincoln also wanted the amendment for other reasons - including, as Scott pointed out, to bring the ideals of the Declaration to fruition. Other reasons include eliminating the one issue divisive enough that it almost destroyed the Union, foreclosing some of the plans proposed by Radical Republicans that would have affected constitutional doctrines such as federalism and separation of powers, and even as part of his overall Reconstruction policy: by including states that had seceded in the ratification process, Lincoln not only remained intellectually consistent with his position that they had never left the Union, he also sought to reincorporate them into politics, and by giving Southern whites a voice in the process he hoped to ease their hostility to abolition.

(10-07-2015 09:24 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:
(10-07-2015 06:53 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:
(10-06-2015 02:14 PM)Christian Wrote: As to the amendment specifically, I think his decisions were primarily political/legal/constitutional. On the broader issue of slavery, however, one can get a glimpse into his thoughts on this issue by looking at the second half of his second inaugural address (and elsewhere).
Welcome again, Christian. I put your book on my wishlist.
Of course you are the expert, and this not to cast doubts on your judgement but trying to understand:

Was it possible to make this decision uninfluenced by Christian values? If not his Christian/moral/ethical values, what would (his [???]) entirely political motives have been?
And I would think from the legal point of view there was no need to ammend the constitution - and do constitutions and laws have to be just/fair from the mere legal point of view? From the Christian/moral/ethical point of view certainly. Was there an absolute need to amend the constitution other than for humanity? (Do you know what I mean? Non-Christian/humanity motives I would think are such as ending the three-fifths rule to count the slave population for representation in the House of Representatives, or economical or other advantages, and I just can't see such motives making Lincoln's decision.)

Eva, I know you were asking this question of Christian, but I hope you don't mind me sharing some of my thoughts here. I agree with Christian that the 13th amendment was political/legal/constiutional in nature (though it was certainly informed or influenced by a moral underpinning).

The reason I say this is as follows. I don't think Lincoln intended the 13th amendment as a "morality" document, because he felt the "morality" document had already been issued and existed. That document was the Declartion of Independence. It promised equality and liberty for all - for him that statement already promised the eradication of slavery from a moral perspective. But that promise had not been fulfilled in practice because of the legal and political climate of the time which allowed slavery's continued existence. His thinking was that the 13th amendment (a legal/political/constitutional doucment) was a legal extension of the Declaration (the morality doucment) or, worded in another way, a practical legal/political/constitutional implementation of the "values" espoused in the Declaration and therein promised to the American people. With the passage of the 13th amendment there could be no legal arugument in that regard and now the promise made in the Declaration was fulfilled (al least in regards to peoples of color - for women, we still had a ways to go) and was enforceable.

As far as the necessity of the amendment to the Constituition, I think Lincoln felt it absolutely necessary and I agree. If not for the 13th amendment, the morality question would have been moot. Here it was the legal question that must be addressed so that the moral equality set forth in the Declaration could be enforced. Though many would have seen slavery as morally wrong (as we certainly do now), I have no doubt slavery would have continued in the United States without the 13th amendment. The Union would have been restored as it was (slavery intact), with the question of legality of slavery left to each individual state. The Emancipation Proclamation would no longer be in effect with the end of the war and the "new birth of freedom" Lincoln spoke of in his remarks at Gettysburg would have been dead in practice, a return to the pre-war state of affairs - with the moral imperitve still present in the Declaration of Indpendence, but dormant.

I certainly don't think the moral implications of slavery, freedom, and liberty can be separted from the policy foundation, but the document itself was more legal/political/constitutional in nature.

This thread is getting me even more anxious to read Christian's book!!