Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 00:14:30 +0000
From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: on nation building


In message <SIMEON.9803031657.C-AT-oem-computer.jmu.edu>, "Rosser Jr, John
Barkley" <rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu> writes
>     Let's get it clear.  I have in no way disputed any of 
>these facts, that the Emancipation Proclamation only 
>applied to Confederate-held areas, that Lincoln was more of 
>a "Unionist" than an abolitionist, and that he indeed did 
>not publicly urge abolition, but merely restricting slavery 
>to where it already was.  
>     However, and I repeat, none of this denies that he was 
>personally opposed to slavery and was so all of his life.  
>It was a matter of pragmatic politics that held him back 
>from an open abolition position.  I also remind that 
>despite his anti-slavery views, he was in modern terms a 
>racist, along with most other nineteenth century folks.
>Barkley Rosser

I think all of this is fair enough, but so what if Lincoln was not
motivated by a moral wish to free the slaves? The North's struggle
against the South was without a shadow of a doubt the progressive
alternative. For sure Lincoln was motivated by a desire to keep the
Union together (he was the president after all). But the Union was in
real danger not only of losing out to the South, but in being dictated a
pro-slavery policy in the new territories. You can attribute an economic
motive to the North in that free labour was more efficient than slave,
but that obscures the real character of the struggle as one between
freedom and slavery. Lincoln might have been slow on the uptake, but he
did win the war. 
-- 
James Heartfield


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---