No. Many people - even some slaveowners, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - found slavery morally troubling. What distinguished abolitionists from the rest was that they were committed to formally abolishing it, and if that weren't possible, to use whatever means to informally get as many slaves to freedom (via the Underground Railroad) as possible. Lincoln, prior to the war anyway, was not prepared to go that far. Even though slavery bothered him, he recognized that the Constitution protected slaveowners' rights, and that their slaves were their legal property. He did not want slavery to spread further than it was, but was not going to interfere with it where it existed. He hoped that by geographically restricting slavery to the 15 states, it would gradually die out on its own.
But there is, I think, a distinction to be made between Lincoln's views and the views of, e.g., Thomas Jefferson (even disregarding Jefferson's morally contemptible status of continuing to hold slaves for his own financial standing even while recognising that slavery was wrong). Jefferson believed that slavery was necessary in his time and that only later, when it was no longer necessary, should it be abolished. Lincoln believed that slavery should be abolished (the House Divided speech, if we dare to presume him honest in what he said there, shows that he believed that all the slave states should become free states), but was merely unwilling to break the law to enforce this. In that I would compare him to (for example) a socialist who believes that capitalism is morally wrong but wants to work within the framework of the law to end capitalism rather than destroying it by force; that doesn't make the socialist any less capitalist, just as it doesn't make Lincoln any less abolitionist, if we define "abolitionist" as "a person who wants slavery to be abolished".
I'm willing to accept that, until the secession had already occurred, Lincoln was not in the boldest and most radical mainstream group-favouring-the-abolition-of-slavery (I'm resisting saying 'abolitionist group') that included men like Fremont (the likes of John Brown are a level less mainstream than that). But just as the unwillingness to break the law for the sake of destroying capitalism doesn't make an anti-capitalist socialist not an anti-capitalist (it makes them less "extreme" but still an anti-capitalist), the unwillingness to break the law for the sake of destroying slavery doesn't make an abolitionist not an abolitionist. And it strikes me as unreasonable to define the term abolitionist such that it
requires the willingness to break the law to advance the cause of abolitionism (that cause being the abolition of slavery).
I don't think you have, and I'm struggling to elaborate any differences between our arguments.
I'm glad of that, then. And thank you.
Without an independent America, you subtract the need to create a national identity, take the decision-making power out of a slave state and move it across the other side of the Atlantic, and give Northern and British abolitionists a single goal to work towards in concert.
This, I think, is where we differ. My argument isn't that the progress of British abolitionism would be more advanced without the American Revolution, but that it would be pretty much unaffected, because of the lack of influence that Americans had in London. Though this does mean that the USA remaining under the British Empire would greatly hasten the end of American slavery (the American South's chances of successfully defeating the American North were remote enough already; of successfully defeating the American North and Great Britain at the same time, I begin to see webbed wings), it wouldn't change the time slavery ended in Great Britain, at least by any direct mechanism.
More to CB on this particular string; sorry if the quote was a little off.
Sorry for the confusion.
But it is always a pleasure to read your posts.
Best,
Thank you.
No, you're bang on - trying to portray Lincoln as something other than an abolitionist is like trying to protray FDR as something other than a democrat (small "d")...
The simple fact the deep south state seceded when they did makes it clear where Lincoln fell on the spectrum regarding slavery; again, there is a reason the secession winter followed his election in 1860...it was not because they thought he was going to
protect slavery.
Again, this is not difficult to suss out for anyone with any intellectual honesty...but if anyone needs a source, Charles Dew's
Apostles of Disunion lays it pretty clearly:
http://books.google.com/books?id=il...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Best,
Though I'd agree that Lincoln was an abolitionist, I'd disagree that the fact that the Southern states seceded when they did proves it. It proves that the Southern states
believed that he would abolish slavery throughout the entire United States even if they didn't secede, but that doesn't imply that he necessarily would have done. Obviously he didn't get the chance IOTL, but is there any evidence to the effect that Lincoln had plans—not just hopes that it would happen someday and somehow, but plans—to make slavery illegal in the entire United States
before the secession? Given that it's known that he believed slavery to be legally protected, it could plausibly be argued, in the absence of such evidence, that he wouldn't have actually tried to take that step if the Southern states hadn't seceded, in spite of him personally believing that the abolition of slavery throughout the entire United States would be a good thing (unless I've misremembered, on this thread it is not being disputed that Lincoln did believe this).