If this discussion seems like a long way around to get to the point, it's because the point is buried in pre-Civil War politics. And sometimes political terms and points of reference from earlier times need a bit of translation. As an illustration, if a politician today uses a term like "compassionate conservatism" or "faith-based" as a synonym for religion, they have immediate refernence points for those who hear it. But someone reading those terms in the middle of an old speech 20 years from now may be puzzled as to what they even mean, much less the particular context.
It's also important to recognize that the fight over slavery was more than just a case of applying the principles of civil equality as we know them in 2004. For instance, the question of an equal vote for women was only on the fringes of the national agenda in 1858. (And, of course, the US Constitution still does not recognize women as legally equal to men.)
This is especially important to remember in light of what comes out of the sewer of neo-Confederate pseudohistory, e.g.: Lincoln didn't use the terms of liberals in 2004 in talking about equal rights, so he wasn't serious about opposing slavery; immediate abolition of slavery in the South was not part of the official Union war aims from the moment the first shot was fired at Ft. Sumter, so the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.
So, in what ways does Dumond see Lincoln as an abolitionist? First, there was Lincoln's consistent position that slavery was against the interest of white working people, and his continual opposition to any extension of slavery into the territories. Lincoln and the Republicans were openly opposed to the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court denied Congress' power to outlaw slavery in any federal territory. And, as Dumond notes, Lincoln as a Congressman voted for the antislavery Wilmot Proviso 40 times.
No comments:
Post a Comment