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