View single post by javal1
 Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 11:19 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD -

Point taken sir. But my point is this: I agree with you that when Lincoln wrote the following to Greeley he was truthful :

"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."

So in order to preserve the Union, he had to tackle the reason the country was fracturing. My point of the above quotes was simply to show what I believe the South knew was their reason for seccession. So to Lincoln, the war became a war againt slavery in order to preserve the Union. So perhaps it's semantics.

However, I'm a little confused by two statements of yours which I see as contradictory. In one post you say:

"But you apparently believe that he was devious enough to prevaricate about what he thought that the war was about. I don't happen to believe that."

but in a previous post you say:

"After the war had proved to be bloody and difficult, it became politically expeditious for Mr. Lincoln to attempt to put the struggle on a higher moral plane in order to inspire continued sacrifices by the people in the north."

Isn't that the definition of prevarication?


 

 Close Window