eral Donn Piatt, who thought Lincoln “the greatest figurernlooming up in our history.” After meeting with the Presidentelectrnin Springfield, Piatt wrote on the e’e of Lincoln’s departurernfor Washington:rnExpressing no svmpathy for the slave, [Lincoln] laughedrnat the Abolitionists. . . . We were not at a loss to get atrnthe fact, and the reason for it, in the man before us. Descendedrnfrom the poor whites of a slave State, throughrnmany generations, he inherited the contempt, if not thernhatred, held by that class for the negro.rnA man must be measured against his time. As Lincoln himselfrnsaid in his Second hiaugural: “judge not that we be notrnjudged.” Lincoln’s position on slavery—that it was evil, that hernwould have no part of it—was that of a principled politician ofrncourage. As for his views on racial equalit-, they were the viewsrnof almost all of his countrymen. But if Lincoln did not go tornwar to make men equal, did he go to war to “make men free”—rnto end the evil of slavery? For to answer the question, “Was thisrna just war?” we have to understand why both sides fought.rnLincoln’s Concessions to the SouthrnUnlike the Lincoln of Gettysburg batdefield in 1863, the Lincolnrnwho slipped into Washington in disguise in the dead ofrnnight in the winter of 1861 did not have the least intention ofrnfreeing any slaves. Nor did the South have reason to fear Lincolnrnwould, or could, abolish slavery. The Supreme Court wasrnSouthern-dominated, led by Chief Justice Roger Tanev of thern1857 Dred Scott decision. There v’as no threat to slavery fromrnthat quarter. And, during the campaign of 1860, Lincoln repeatedlyrnassured the South he was no Abolitionist. In the firstrnparagraphs of his Inaugural Address, Lincoln repeated his assurancesrnthat he would make no attempt to abolish slavery.rnApprehension seems to exist among the people of thernSouthern States, that by the accession of a RepublicanrnAdministration, their property, and their peace, and personalrnsecurity, are to be endangered. There has neverrnbeen any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed,rnthe most ample cidence to the contrary has all thernwhile existed, and been open to their inspection. It isrnfound m nearly all the published speeches of him whornnow addresses you. I do but quote from one of thosernspeeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directlyrnor indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery inrnthe States where it exists. I believe I hae no lawful rightrnto do so, and I have no intention to do so.” Those whornnominated and elected mc did so with full knowledgernthat I have made this, and many similar declarations, andrnhad never recanted them.rnHis party’s platform, said Lincoln, endorsed the “inviolate”rnright of each state to “control its own domestic institutions.” Inrnexcoriation of John Brown’s raid, Lincoln noted in his Inauguralrnthat, in their 1860 platform. Republicans “denounce thernlawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory,rnno matter under what pretext, as among the gravest ofrncrimes.”rnSouth Carolina had seceded on the grounds that the UnitedrnStates was failing to uphold the fugitive slave provision of thernConstitution. But Lincoln assured Southerners their escapedrnslaves would be returned:rnThere is much controversy about the delivering up ofrnfugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read isrnas plainly written in the Constitution as any other of itsrnprovisions: “No person held to service or labor in onernState, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,rnshall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, berndischarged from such service or labor, but shall be deliveredrnup on claim of the party to whom such ser’iee or laborrnmay be due.”rnIt is scarcely questioned that this provision was intendedrnby those who made it, for the reclaiming of whatrnwe call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giverrnis the law. All members of Congress swear their supportrnto the whole Constitution—to this provision as much asrnto any other. To the proposition, then, that slaes whoserncases come within the terms of this clause, “shall be deliveredrnup,” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if theyrnwould make the effort in good temper, could they not, withrnnearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means ofrnwhich to keep good that unanimous oath? [Emphasisrnadded.]rnLincoln is calling here for a new federal fugitive slave law tornreinforce Congress’ constitutional obligation that escapedrnslaves “shall be delivered up” to their masters. In capturing andrnreturning fugitive slaves, said Lincoln, some observers favorrnstate authority, others federal authority. But, he asked: What isrnthe difference? “If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be ofrnbut little consequence to him, or to others, by which authorityrnit is done.”rnThe issue on which Republicans were united was that the extensionrnof slavery to new states should be halted. Lincoln didrnnot back down from this position in his Inaugural Address. Butrnhe did offer a guarantee to the South that where slavery existed,rnit could be made a permanent institution, by a new constitutionalrnamendment.rnOne section of our countr- believes slavery is right, andrnought to be extended, while the other believes it isrnwrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the onlyrnsubstantial dispute. . . . I understand a proposed amendmentrnto the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to therneffect that the federal government, shall never interferernwith the domestic institutions of the States, includingrnthat of persons held to service. To avoid misconstructionrnof what I have said, I depart from my purpose not tornspeak of particular amendments, so far as to say that,rnholding such a provision to now be implied constitutionalrnlaw, I have no objection to its being made express, andrnirrevocable.rnThus, in this final concession, Lincoln says he would not opposerna constitutional amendment to make slavery permanentrnin the 15 states where it then existed. The first ThirteenthrnAmendment to the Constitution Abraham Lincoln endorsed,rnthen, did not end chattel slavery, but would have authorizedrnchattel slavery forever. No true Abolitionist could have beenrnother than horrified by Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address.rnIs there a moral defense of Lincoln’s offer to make perma-rn16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn