Black and White | Page 5

modern government, and that aroused the people to a
sorrowful realization that the power which defied them was strong
enough and desperate enough to stop at nothing short of the
disintegration of the American Union. So the nation, still sympathizing
with slavery, still playing with a coal of fire, grappled with the monster,
feeling itself powerful to crush it in a few short months.
It was not because the people of the nation hated slavery and
oppression that they rushed upon the field of battle; no such
righteousness moved them: it was because the slave-power, which had
for so long dictated legislation and the interpretation of the laws, would
tolerate no adverse criticism or legislation upon the foul institution it
championed, and appealed from the forum of reason to the forum of
treasonable rebellion to enforce the right so long and (I blush to say it!)
constitutionally conceded to it.
I do not believe that, in 1860, a majority (or even a respectable

minority) of the American people desired the manumission of the slave;
it is evident, from the temper of the political discussions of that time,
that the combination of parties out of which, in 1856, the Republican
party was formed, desired to do no more than to confine the institution
of slavery within the territory then occupied. There was certainly very
little comfort for the black man in this position of the "party of great
moral ideas."
The overtures[2] made by President Lincoln to the slave-power during
the first year of the war were all made in the interest of the perpetuation
of the Union, and not in the interest of the slave.
His reply to Mr. Horace Greeley, who urged upon him the importance
of issuing an emancipation proclamation is conclusive that he was more
concerned about the Union than about the slave:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 22, 1862
HON. HORACE GREELEY:--Dear Sir: I have just read yours of the
19th, addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in
it any statements or assumptions of facts which I may know to be
erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any
inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not, now and
here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an imperious and
dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I
have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I seem to be pursuing, as you say, I have not meant to
leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the
constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the
nearer the Union will be the Union it was.
* * * If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could
at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and
I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purposes according to my view of official duty;
and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all
men, everywhere, should be free.
Yours, A. LINCOLN
Everything--humanity, justice, posterity--was placed upon the
sacrificial altar of the Union, and the slave-power was repeatedly and
earnestly invited to lay down its traitorous arms, be forgiven, and keep
its slaves. With Mr. Lincoln, as President, it was the Union, first, last,
and all the time. And he but echoed the prevailing opinions of his time.
I do not question or criticise his personal attitude; but what he himself
called his "view of official duty" was to execute the will of the people,
and that was not to abolish slavery, at that time.
As the politicians only took hold of the great question when they
thought it would advance their selfish interests,