I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
- Abraham Lincoln March 4, 1861
2007-08-10 08:00:16 · 10 answers · asked by speed__phreak 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is correct, he flip flopped. When it became necessary to appease north easterners who were the few abolitionists in the country he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and held it for months because it was too embarrassing to try to make a proclamation when you are being so badly beaten in every battle. Finally after Sharpsburg he revealed it and got needed support in the far northeast.
Kind of Hillery Clintonesque huh?
2007-08-10 08:07:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not directly. Due to laws in the north southern states seceded. Lincoln's goal was to keep the Union together. This did make the abolishment of slavery necessary to prevent a reoccurance.
2007-08-10 08:04:55 · answer #2 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think Lincoln was actually more interested in preserving the union than of ending slavery. Also, remember, the 13th amendment was not the product of Lincoln. It was the product of the US Congress and a majority of the states. Those are the people who decide on amendments to the constitution. However, I do believe that Lincoln abhorred the idea of slavery.
2007-08-10 08:05:16 · answer #3 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Lincoln's primary goal was the preservation of the union. He didn't really become pro-abolition until deep in to the war when the North was getting battle weary and needed a reason greater than secession for continuing.
2007-08-10 08:10:13 · answer #4 · answered by nileslad 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with nation building - GW Bush, July 1999
2007-08-10 08:54:11 · answer #5 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never the less, it was abolished during his ill fated presidency,
But to say it was solely Lincolns doing, is wrong.
2007-08-10 08:04:26 · answer #6 · answered by bgee2001ca 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When war broke out it became expedient to declare those slaves free who resided in those territories under armed rebellion against the US government.
That's straight from the Emancipation Proclamation.
If they would have quit fighting, they could have kept their slaves.
2007-08-10 08:08:33 · answer #7 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a flip-flopper!
2007-08-10 08:02:55 · answer #8 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
i guess good sense overcame him.
2007-08-10 08:04:49 · answer #9 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
yes, he did, and F.D.R. brought it back to ALL of us.
2007-08-10 08:05:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋