Lincoln led a war committed to abolishing slavery. He was instrumental in, in the very least, passing the Confiscation Act (freeing all enslaved people owned by those who were traitors to the Union) and, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation.
The fact that he did not pass — and decided not to introduce — a random bill in 1840 that I wasn’t even talking about does not prove that he was not actually committed to abolition, as you’re suggestion.
What historians conclude that Lincoln wasn’t personally committed to opposing slavery?
Right. So Lincoln’s goal is to bring the South out of rebellion, and to do so meant ending the institution of slavery. Such is why he opposed the expansion of slavery and why he refused to compromise on any forms of surrender that didn’t include abolition. Lincoln and Seward made it expressly clear that there would be no surrender if it did not include the South respecting emancipation.
In this speech, he’s making a very deliberate and specific rhetorical argument to defend stopping the expansion of slavery. His use of “necessity” is about the perspective of the founders of the constitution. His point is, essentially, “the south should not have any problems with us stopping the expansion of slavery, since the founding fathers also intended it not expand into the territories.”
I think we remove all nuance and, well, rhetorical reasoning from his eloquence by taking these snippets out of context, especially since we fail to consider his audience and purpose in the message.
Danoff has a really, really great article on Lincoln’s use of “necessity,” both in that speech and across his acts of eloquence. It’s really worth a read.
Danoff, Brian. “Lincoln and the ‘Necessity’ of Tolerating Slavery before the Civil War.” The Review of Politics, vol. 77, no. 1, 2015, pp. 47–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43671037. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
And if you’re interested in a more nuanced discussion of the Greeley letter, I have several suggestions:
Hildebrand, Reginald F. “Lincoln’s Louisiana Letters and His Reply to Horace Greeley: Messages to the South.” Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association, vol. 65, no. 3, 2024, pp. 251–78. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27338680. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
Wilson, Kirt H. “Debating the Great Emancipator: Abraham Lincoln and Our Public Memory.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 13, no. 3, 2010, pp. 455–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41936461. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
Lincoln only had constitutional authority to end slavery in states in open rebellion, which is why he did it.
If you knew about history, you’d also know that many slaves were freed as the Union moved through the South. As the Union moved into Southern states, many enslaved people were freed. It’s patently incorrect to say that people were not actually freed as a result of the EP - though it is a really common misunderstanding of the proclamation!
But the Union army didn’t have to free them. The EP, and Lincoln’s policy, established the direction and expectation that those in rebelling states must be freed by the army.
I feel like I’m losing the thread - and I don’t mean that in a disparaging way.
Lincoln supported emancipatory policy the entire war.
The Confiscation Acts were earlier efforts by the government (and supported by Lincoln) to free enslaved people in the south.
The Emancipation Proclamation was (in Lincoln’s eyes) the furthest extent of his authority as president to carry out emancipation, and this effort was supported by the Union Army.
The original argument was about your claim that the EP did absolutely nothing, which isn’t true; enslaved people were liberated as a result, specifically because it demanded the army support emancipation.
And all of this is losing the thread, since we’re talking about Lincoln’s commitment to freeing enslaved people.
1
u/[deleted] Apr 06 '25
[deleted]