President Abraham Lincoln. Racist or moral ground?

President Lincoln as judged today but what about slavery? / credit-ref this authors collection
One in a series of my blogs on the American Civil War with the celibration of the 150th annversity.
Again, how Lincoln would be judged according to 19th century standards and not todays.

Lincoln in his day was enlightened in his approach to the race question, and certainly his views toward the slaves were not as repugnant as those of the Southern and Northern supporter's of slavery who felt the slaves were a higher from of animal versus human beings, and used, amongst other justifications, select Biblical passages that "validated" the institution of slavery.

Regardless of his motives for doing so, and ignoring the interesting historical question of did he use the abolition of slavery purely as a "pawn" in order to save the Union, he did accomplish both objectives. He freed the slaves, not by the Emancipation Proclamation, but by winning the War. By winning he also reestablished the primacy of the Union, along with it's preservation.

My problem in this is not with Lincoln, or any other 19th century figure, Northern or Southern. My issue is with individuals who will take someone and append modern appelations to them that don't fit.

Today Lincoln would not be the model for a civil rights leader because his views would be questionable to most people today.

I think pragmatism in pursuit of Lincolns primary objective of perserving the Union is what led him to his advocation of the abolition of slavery as a war aim, versus a modern day explianation of "moral" judgement on his part that slavery was intrinsically evil. I just don't believe the historical record supports a viewpoint that Lincoln held a fundamental opposition to slavery.

I hope nothing I have posted previously was interpreted by anyone as my being an apologist for slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just disagree with some individuals on if it was a the cause versus the catalyst for the War.
 Concerning Slavery, some think Lincoln and the Republican Partys' stand was unequivocal, it was wrong, it must be eliminated. I suggest that stand was not pragmatic if most of the country was racist and the majority was not particularly exercised by its presence."

The historical record, including Lincolns public and private comments and correspondence, does not support the position that Lincoln had a personal moral aversion to Slavery. Lincoln was the President from a party that was opposed to Slavery.

A source for many of my previous statements about Lincoln's personal views is "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work).

One additional quote I'll provide from Basler's work is the following concerning Lincoln's attitude toward slavery even after war was threatened, and then broke out. In his own words, Lincoln states he "struggled for nearly a year and a half" to save the institution of slavery. Hardly the words of a ardent moral opponent of the institution.

Allen T. Rice in the work "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of his Time" New York, 1888 is the source for the following quote about Lincoln.

For those who think Lincoln was a great moral crusader fighting because of an inherent belief in the immorality of slavery, I invite them to produce one verified statement where Lincoln states such a belief. Many historians have spent their entire career's seaching for such a statement, but one has yet to surface that I am aware of.

The the Emancipation Proclamation and the impact it had upon European recognition of the Confederacy. The European Powers, especially England were not motivated by a burning desire to clothe themselves in the ideals of the Confederacy when consideration of recognition was being proposed. They instead were also acting out of pragmatism.

Number one, they thought there was a very good chance the South would win the war.

Number two, any breakup of the USA would rebound to their benefit. Two weaker nations in North America was better for their Empires than was one strong one.

Number three, if the South did win, and they had rebuffed efforts and appeals for recognition and aid, their relations with the newly independent South would have started off on less than favorable conditions.

Number four, the only war aim, prior to Antietem and the Emancipation Proclamation that was a direct result of that victory, was preservation of the Union. While the European powers were happy with the status quo from a trade perspective, again they weren't willing to ignore a possible victor in the war, thus the consideration of the recognition of the South.

Number five, diplomatic blunders by the North, for example, the infamous "Trent Affair" had ruffled many feathers in London and other European capitol's. In fact, it can be argued that had Prince Albert of Britian not violated HIS constitutional authority under the British Constitution, and intervened with Palmerston, a British Fleet may have been readied for deployment off the Union's East Coast.

Antietam put paid to the proposition of a quick decisive Confederate victory. The Emancipation Proclamation then was issued and the war aims of the Union changed, again IMHO for pragmatic versus moral reason's as i've elaborated on in previous postings. This new identification by the North of WHY they were fighting the war, coupled with anti-slavery sentiment in the European homelands, which WAS in the majority and motivated by moral grounds, when added to the new opinion that the South couldn't now win, gave the European powers the "out" they needed to effectively "pull the plug" on any chance of recognition of the Confederacy.

I admit I wish a credible argument could be made that a great moral indignation again the institution of slavery had existed in a majority postion prior to the Civil War in the North. Such a postion might have made the South pause, re-evaluate their position, and find a way to stay in the Union. But it didn't exist. Northern politicians and much popular opinion supported Slavery and the arguments for it. More politicians and public support, North and South, were not willing to risk war for the sake of Slavery, and it took the fluke of a major political split which allowed a tiny regional party to win the presidency with 39% of the popular vote to set in motion the final elimination of slavery.

Somehow in all the historical evidence I fail to find the great moral movement on the majority of American's for the elimination of slavery based on moral motives. I do see a series of circumstances which evolved that, based on pragmatism, did coalesce and resulted in the elimination of that odious institution. But, because the ultimate outcome was a great moral good, one should not make the mistake of ascribing moral motives to leaders (Lincoln) and movements (Northern public opinion) which other motives were bigger player's in bringing about the ultimate results.

Quoting BB Mumford From the Richmond, Va., Times, October 22, 1899

On the 22d of September, 1862, after the war had been in progress for a year and a half, Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation, in which he declared that the slaves held in the States, or portions of States which should be still in rebellion on the 1st of January, 1863, following, would be, by a subsequent proclamation, emancipated. His justification was found in the fact that, as a war measure, it would deplete the strength of the Confederacy and augment the forces of the Union.

In all other portions of the Union where slavery was legalized, to-wit: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and portions of Louisiana and Virginia, the institution would remain unaffected by the proclamation. More than that, by the very terms of the proclamation, the people of the States in which it was made to apply could escape its effects by laying down their arms. Surely if the preservation of the institution of slavery in the seceding States furnished the incentive for their conduct, these States had simply to ground their arms and the institution would have remained.

On the 1st of January, 1863, the final proclamation was made, in which it was recited, because of the failure of the people of the States and portions of States above mentioned to lay down their arms, the slaves within those designated localities were declared free, and the President pledged all the powers of the Union to make good this declaration. It may be of interest to note that, among the counties of Virginia excepted from the operation of this proclamation, were Accomac and Northampton--in honor of the Confederate soldiers from which this monument is dedicated to-day.

Thus, and thus only, did the emancipation of the slaves become involved in the war. Mr. Lincoln only justified his proclamation as a war measure to help the cause of the Union, for he said: "If he could save the Union by freeing the slaves, he would do it; if he could save it by freeing one-half and keeping the other half in slavery, he would take that plan; if keeping them all in slavery would effect the object, that would be his course."

The North was not monolithic on the subject of abolition of slavery, and indeed, during the war I will still argue that the majority of the North were NEVER "abolitionist" in nature. Rather, they were willing to accept and promote abolition as the price to pay for victory. Only afterwards did some reluctant "supporter's" discover and decide to play the "morality" card.

Also, the decision to embank on the "moral crusade" by Lincoln of the abolition of slavery was again, a pragmatic solution to a major problem he faced, i.e., the very real possibility that foreign recognition was going to force the Union, at best, to agree to mediation by the European Powers ala the Congress of Vienna. At worst, the North was going to be faced with open endorsement of the South by the major European powers, coupled with active military intervention.

Failure by the North to agree to such mediation quite possibly would have meant 1) the breaking of the Union blockade of the South by the British Fleet,
2) the open, versus covert, financing and supplying of the munitions of war by France and England, and
3) possibly a European refusal to engage in commerce with the North until she agreed a peace settlement with the South.
The emancipation proclamation, and the cosmetic changing of the chief War aims of the North to the abolition of slavery versus preservation of the Union proved a master stroke by a master politician. Lincoln reframed the argument of recognition of the South to where recognition was explicitly coupled with advocation of slavery.

I'm not convinced that ultimately Lincoln would not have gotten rid of the idea of abolition of slavery if the South had agreed to reenter the Union. There is too much historical evidence arguing that Lincoln repeatedly considered just such an option. However, the embracing of abolition by Lincoln was a great move at a time when the North was on the proverbial ropes.

Was a greater good achieved because of slavery's abolition. No question, of course it was. But, again, one must be intellectually honest and to me, it was pragmatism versus morality that brought about the result.

Support for my analysis that Lincoln was very reluctant in his support for the 13th amendment comes from David H Donald's 1995 biography of Lincoln, "Herndon's Informants" edited by Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis, Urbana 1998, "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work), and Allen T. Rice in the work "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of his Time" New York, 1888 amongst others.

Rather than being a driving force for the 13th amendment, Lincoln opposed it up until the nominating convention in 1864. It was legislator's like Charles Sumner, Lyman Trumball and James Ashley who were the driving force behind the 13th amendment. Lincoln primarily watched from the sidelines and did nothing to support it.

During his 1864 campaign for renomination by the Republican Party, Lincoln faced considerable opposition within his own party. As an example, I quote from "Reasons against the re-nomination of Abraham Lincoln, adopted February 15, 1864 by a Republican Meeting at Davenport Iowa (pamphlet found in the Huntington Library). The pamphlet states Lincoln was a contra-emancipator who had done more to hinder emancipation than to advance it. They referred to Lincoln as a "brakeman" who "clogged and impeded the wheels and movements of the revolution". These Republicans further stated that the Black's liberty was "about to be born to light, but Lincoln has not the merit of having promoted the birth".

It was only after the National Union Convention that Lincoln climbed aboard the bandwagon of public opinion and came out in support of the 13th amendment. In this, Lincoln exhibited a tendency he often showed, i.e., don't do anything until forced by public opinion to act. or lose out.

David H. Donald has noted in his biography, a pleasant fiction exists that Lincoln then became a flaming advocate of the amendment (13th) and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure it's passage. As Donald explicitly states in his biography, there is no evidence to support that fiction. Donald does note that it was only at the last moment that Lincoln acted to move the legislative process forward.

Wendall Phillips, of the abolitionist movement, said in the Feb 10, 1865 "Liberator" stated Lincolns support for the 13th amendment and other similar initiatives were forced. He further stated that Lincoln had not made a single step toward Black liberation on his own. This is only one of many quotes from abolitionists who during Lincoln's lifetime criticized him for his lack of support of Black interests.

Kenneth M Stampp who stated of Lincoln "Indeed, it may be said that if it was Lincoln's destiny to go down in History as the Great Emancipator, rarely has a man embraced his destiny with greater reluctance than he" (quoted from the "Era of Reconstruction", New York, 1965).

To cloak Lincoln in the mantle of being a driving force for Black equality, motivated primarily by a moral opposition to a segment of mankind being held in bondage, if they wish. However, such analysis is incorrect. Lincoln was a great man and unquestionably, one of our greatest presidents. But he also had fundamental flaws.

Many people like to quote Lincoln as having said that the Declaration of Independence "comtemplated the progressive improvement of all men everywhere" and cite this as an example of Lincoln's moral belief's advocating the equality of the slaves. However, consulting "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work) shows that while the speech was given in Springfield on June 26, 1857, and that Lincoln did indeed utter these words, the following is not quoted from the same speech. Lincoln, on the same page stated that he and Stephen A. Douglas were "horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races". If my notes are correct (and it has been many years since I copied them), this particular speech can be found in "The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work) in volume 2, page 407. As this example shows, when the full context of the speech is read, the statement about the Declaration of Independence takes on a different meaning.

Lincoln was not a political abolitionist. As a lawyer/politician Lincoln was sensitive to rights established by law, and to the consensus established in those laws. Lincoln is not an abolitionist President, or a free soil President, or a high tariff President. He is by his own estimation President of the United States. Strategically he appears to make an effort to think across mere party lines, or advocacy lines and attempts to act in the larger interests of a consensus.

The 4 Apr 64 public letter to AG Hodges is interesting as Lincoln is speaking to Kentuckians on his perspective of the fate of slavery, and preparing them for the inevitable end of the institution. It is also a defense of his methodology.

It's why I constantly remind people that Lincoln needed the 2d Confiscation Act before he committed to the Emancipation Proclamation. When the legal instrument presented itself he immediately used it.

I was perhaps unclear in stating Lincolns application of the 13th Ammendment. It would be inappropriate to say that Lincoln drove the Bill in Congress, but once the Bill was on the floor and Lincoln was renominated to run for a second term, Lincoln placed the Bill on the top burner as a political necessity to prevent subversion of "war acts" which freed slaves.

This process is convoluted. That makes Lincoln subject to every form of criticism from both benches. Lincoln never loses perspective on the fact that he is still a minority President and what he attempts to do must gain support from without if it is not to be percieved as an arbitrary imposition by fiat or party politics.
 Ralph Waldo Emerson who is quoted in "Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson" edited by E.W. Emerson and W.E. Forbes, Boston, 1913, as saying that Lincoln "thinks Emancipation almost morally wrong and resorts to it only as a desperate measure".

Some contemporaries of Lincoln are on record supporting the view that Lincoln despised abolitionists. Examples include, Colonel Donn Piatt, a former confidate of Lincoln who campaigned mightily for him in his first presidential election, who stated publicly that Lincoln "laughed at the Abolitionists as a disturbing element easily controlled" ("Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of his Time", Allen T. Rice, New York, 1888 .

Republican congressman Eli Thayer is quoted as saying Lincoln spoke of abolitionists "in terms of contempt and derision" ("An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln: John G. Nicolay's Interviews and Essays", Michael Burlington ed., Carbondale, 1996).

Jessie Benton Fremont, daughter of Senator Thomas Hart Benton and wife of General John C Fremont called Lincoln "the Pontius Pilate of the slaves" ("The letters of Jessie Benton Fremont", edited by Pamela Herr and Mary Lee Spence, Urbana, 1993).

My opinion as stated previously, Lincoln had been no supporter of abolitionists in general, and Emancipation in particular for the majority of his political career. He had specifically voted in Congress against measures designed to advance the condition of the slaves, had supported the South consistently in votes and public utterances on items such as the fugitive slave laws, when Emancipation became a potent political item Lincoln failed to support immediate Emancipation on every occasion and further advocated that after Emancipation deportation, by force if necessary, from the physical borders of the United States should occur.

Moving on to the Emancipation Proclamation,......Lincoln only freed the slaves in the States currently in rebellion,......he specifically excluded those living within States loyal to the Union........It can be argued that under US law Lincoln didn't have ANY authority to emancipate slaves living in States which continued to accept the Constitution as "the law of the land". Again, it is a fine legal point, but the only territory which Lincoln could "free" the slaves was those States which had passed Articles of Secession, the effect of which was repudiation of the US Constitution."

Some evidence exists which suggests that Lincoln, by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was attempting to achieve a plan of gradual emancipation, coupled with compensation to slaveowners, and then when "freedom" was obtained, the deportation, by force if necessary, of the emancipated slaves from the territory of the United States.

Support for this analysis is provided by, amongst others, Judge David Davis a Lincoln "crony", Lincoln intimate Henry Clay Whitney, and the statements and actions of Lincoln himself.

Judge David Davis is quoted as saying in 1862, some two months after Lincoln signed the Preliminary Proclamation (signed on Sept. 22, 1862), that Lincolns "whole soul...is absorbed in his (Lincoln's) plan of remunerative emancipation, and he thinks that if Congress don't fail him, that the problem is solved" (David B. Davis to Leonard Swett, Davis Papers, Nov.26th, 1862, Illinois State Historical Library).

Henry Clay Whitney said of the Proclamation that it was " not the end designed by him (Lincoln), but only the means to the end, the end being the deportation of slaves and the payment for them to their masters....at least those who were loyal" ("Life on the Circuit with Lincoln", Henry C Whitney, Boston, 1892).

Whitney on a different date further states that Lincoln "issued his Proclamation with a shrewder purpose than the public was aware of:.....for as a lawyer, he knew it was of no inherent value, if unsupported". ("Life on the Circuit with Lincoln", Henry C Whitney, Boston, 1892).

Whitney then further states in yet another instance " that he knew his Proclamation would not, of itself, establish freedom in this, a constitutional government, is plain; without erudition or scientific methods, he understood the fundamental principles of constitutional law.......and he understood very well that his Proclamation was merely, ........a brutem fulmen" ("Life on the Circuit with Lincoln", Henry C Whitney, Boston, 1892).

Finally Lincoln himself in his second State of the Union Message asked Congress to approve a plan that called for, amongst other items, the deportation (Lincoln's term) of Black's and used language that called for the racial cleansing of the United States of America (although not in the genocidal sense so prevalent in the 20th and 21st centuries). ("The collected works of Abraham Lincoln" edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutger's 1955 (11 volume work). Congress apparently took his proposals seriously because money was eventually appropriated to fund the deportation of the Blacks.

Further support of my, and other's, interpretation of Lincoln's motives on this subject are provided in his votes and statements on the proposed 13th amendment, not the one which eventually passed, but the one which was numerically proposed years earlier as the next in line after the existing 12th amendment.

As I have stated previously, my purpose of this debate is not to bash Lincoln. I acknowledge his greatness, but I have little regard for those who advance the "Myth of Lincoln" and even less for those who have chosen to "diefy" him.

A great man, certainly and unequivocally!!!! Whatever the motives and personally held beliefs, did he achieve a great moral good? Again, no contest, he did!!!!! But his motives and personal beliefs on this particular subject being based on a complete moral opposition to slavery, my personal opinion is no.

Lincoln was a man, flaws and all. As such he should be subject to the examination and criticism reserved for all other historical figures.

In the final analysis, Lincoln is more than capable of withstanding the scrutiny and standing on his own merits. My opinion...He was the right man at the right time faults or no faults. Had it been someone else, this country may had been hard pressed to survive as one nation.
 My total statement regards "myth".
"As I have stated previously, my purpose of this debate is not to bash Lincoln. I acknowledge his greatness, but I have little regard for those who advance the "Myth of Lincoln" and even less for those who have chosen to "diefy" him.

A great man, certainly and unequivocally!!!! Whatever the motives and personally held beliefs, did he achieve a great moral good? Again, no contest, he did!!!!! But his motives and personal beliefs on this particular subject being based on a complete moral opposition to slavery, my personal opinion is no.

Lincoln was a man, flaws and all. As such he should be subject to the examination and criticism reserved for all other historical figures.

In the final analysis, Lincoln is more than capable of withstanding the scrutiny and standing on his own merits. My opinion...He was the right man at the right time faults or no faults. Had it been someone else, this country may had been hard pressed to survive as one nation."
 Lincolns primary goal was the saving of the union not he ending slavery even though he was adverst to slavery and hated the institution.

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 fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inference which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient 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 as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. 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 purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of the oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
 In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies.

President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.

Still, many African Americans wanted to join the fighting and continued to put pressure on federal authorities. Even if Lincoln was not ready to admit it, blacks knew that this was a war against slavery. Some, however, rejected the idea of fighting to preserve a Union that had rejected them and which did not give them the rights of citizens.

The federal government had a harder time deciding what to do about escaping slaves. Because there was no consistent federal policy regarding fugitives, individual commanders made their own decisions. Some put them to work for the Union forces; others wanted to return them to their owners. Finally, on August 6, 1861, fugitive slaves were declared to be "contraband of war" if their labor had been used to aid the Confederacy in any way. And if found to be contraband, they were declared free.

Though "contraband" slaves had been declared free, Lincoln continued to insist that this was a war to save the Union, not to free slaves. But by 1862, Lincoln was considering emancipation as a necessary step toward winning the war. The South was using enslaved people to aid the war effort. Black men and women were forced to build fortifications, work as blacksmiths, nurses, boatmen, and laundresses, and to work in factories, hospitals, and armories. In the meantime, the North was refusing to accept the services of black volunteers and freed slaves, the very people who most wanted to defeat the slaveholders. In addition, several governments in Europe were considering recognizing the Confederacy and intervening against the Union. If Lincoln declared this a war to free the slaves, European public opinion would overwhelmingly back the North.

Some people were critical of the proclamation for only freeing some of the slaves. Others, including Frederick Douglass, were jubilant. Douglass felt that it was the beginning of the end of slavery, and that it would act as a "moral bombshell" to the Confederacy. Yet he and others feared that Lincoln would give in to pressure from northern conservatives, and would fail to keep his promise. But the purpose of the Civil War had now changed. The North was not only fighting to preserve the Union, it was fighting to end slavery.

Black soldiers faced discrimination as well as segregation. The army was extremely reluctant to commission black officers -- only one hundred gained commissions during the war. African American soldiers were also given substandard supplies and rations. Probably the worst form of discrimination was the pay differential. At the beginning of black enlistment, it was assumed that blacks would be kept out of direct combat, and the men were paid as laborers rather than as soldiers. Black soldiers therefore received $7 per month, plus a $3 clothing allowance, while white soldiers received $13 per month, plus $3.50 for clothes.

Black troops strongly resisted this treatment. The Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts Regiment served a year without pay rather than accept the unfair wages. Many blacks refused to enlist because of the discriminatory pay. Finally, in 1864, the War Department sanctioned equal wages for black soldiers.

In the South, most slaveholders were convinced that their slaves would remain loyal to them. Some did, but the vast majority crossed Union lines as soon as Northern troops entered their vicinity. Numbers of white southerners also refused to support the Confederacy. From the beginning, there were factions who vehemently disagreed with secession and remained loyal to the Union. Many poor southern whites became disillusioned during the course of the war.

There were also northerners who resisted the war effort. Some were pacifists. Others were white men who resented the fact that the army was drafting them at the same time it excluded blacks. And there were whites who refused to fight once black soldiers were admitted. The North was also hit by economic depression, and enraged white people rioted against African Americans, who they accused of stealing their jobs.

Finally, on April 18, 1865, the Civil War ended with the surrender of the Confederate army. 617,000 Americans had died in the war, approximately the same number as in all of America's other wars combined. Thousands had been injured. The southern landscape was devastated.

A new chapter in American history opened as the Thirteenth Amendment, passed in January of 1865, was implemented. It abolished slavery in the United States, and now, with the end of the war, four million African Americans were free.

This platform refers to Teritorys and not free or slave states.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/SCARTOONS/car1860.html

comes the following;

The national platform of the Republican party called not for the destruction of slavery, but only for its restriction to the Southern states. The party had toned down the language in its platform from that of 1856, which had referred to the "twin relics of barbarism-- Polygamy, and Slavery." Lincoln himself took relatively conservative positions on key racial issues, supporting enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, and opposing both the abolition of interstate slave trading and emancipation in the District of Columbia.

http://elections.harpweek.com/1860/Overview-1860-2.htm

The Republican platform opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories without condemning it in the South, criticized the judicial activism of the Dred Scott decision, denounced John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry, endorsed a federal homestead law and a transcontinental railroad, and opposed stricter naturalization laws.

http://www.vernonjohns.org/vernjohns/sthcvlwr.html

Romantics love to say that the nation fought the war primarily to destroy the moral evil of slavery. This overstress on morality as the main factor is not acceptable. The nation was able to live with slavery from 1619 to 1863, and slavery was the same moral evil in 1619 as it was in 1863. Actually, the strong moral onslaught against slavery began only after the Compromise of 1850. Only after differing self-interests of the two regions widened on slavery did the North turn solidly to the moral argument. The South responded with arguments that morally justified slavery. This turn to moral positions meant the conflict had already hardened past the point of no return.

Cartoon of the time showing Lincoln a racist / credit-ref this authors collection

Political cartoon of the time / credit-ref this authors collection

President Lincoln / credit-ref this authors collection