Abraham Lincoln, depending on who you ask, is either destroying the country by

changing too much or not bring enough change to do anything. Born February 12, 1809,
in
LaRue County, Kentucky to Thomas and Nancy Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln was elected
in 1846
to the United States House of Representatives and served a two year term as a Whig
from
Illinois. On May 18, 1860 he receives the nomination for president at the Republican
convention
in Chicago against democrat Stephen Douglas. After a series of debates, on November
6, 1860 he
was elected the 16th president of the United States and has held office for the last four
years.
With the nation torn, the President has been hard at work trying to restore the Union
together.
Just days before the election I had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Lincoln as he
reflected on the
last few years of his presidency.
Slavery has been a tricky situation during your presidency. How do you feel about it now
that you are coming to the end of your first term?
In politics, picking a side or taking a stance on something is almost always going to
displease
somebody. Not everyone has the same views or insight on why people decide to do
what they
feel is because they completely believe the opposite is what is right. Nothing is truer
than with
the institution of slavery. A subject that with anyone is a delicate one because of the
passionate
opinions people have formed. On one side there is a group that feels that it would
destroy the

country if completely removed. On the other hand there is another group who just as
passionate
that believes our country is going to fall apart if slavery is not completely removed. And
then
there are those who are in the middle and feel lukewarm towards either side. This not
only
displeases the people to the far left, but also to the ones on far right. Being the
President and
having this be an issue I’ve had to deal with has had that result from both sides of the
spectrum.
The term abolitionist has been used to describe you by some. How do you feel about
the
title?
People forget that from the very second I became the 16th president of the United
States I took
the oath to preserve, protect, and defend to the best of my ability the Constitution of the
United
States. I have admitted that seeing those poor creature being treated so poorly has
always left a
sour taste in my mouth, but I bit my lip towards it because the Constitution, the very
thing I was
put in office to protect, prevented me from banning slavery in states where it already
existed.
During my debates against Stephen Douglas I stated that I believe that “All men are
create
equal”, but that I was not for the social and political equality of both races. The reason I
felt
slavery was unjust is because like all men, blacks have the right to improve their status
in society
and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. As a man of the law I had to, like many in the North,
crucify
my feelings in order to maintain my loyalty to the Union and the Constitution. What my
goal has
been from the start and will continue until the issue at hand is resolved is to bring the
Union
together, not abolish slavery.
If not an abolitionist then how do you explain your 1849 attempted and failure as a
congressman and later the signing of the District of Columbia Compensated
Emancipation
Act of 1862?

Henry Clay said, “There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children,
whose
ancestors have been torn from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence.
Transplanted in a
foreign land, they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization,
law
and liberty.” My plan early on of solving the issues that abolition brings were echoed
with the
views of Henry Clay and the re-colonization concept. My main goal with both of those
bills was
not to try to end slavery immediately and force everyone to integrate, but instead make
it a
gradual process. It was a compromise that was meant to benefit both parties. In this
case, the
slaveowner would receive financial compensation for the freed slave. The newly freed
slave
would then be paid $100 if he or she decided to leave the United States and colonize in
places
like Haiti. This is the model I thought would be a step forward in help bring The Union
back
together.
But that’s not what happened.
Exactly. I was proven wrong after numerous earnest and successive appeals to the
boarder states
to adopt it failed. The war is not a struggle to free the slaves. Until that moment I had
denied
Gen. Fremont, who early on in the war advocated for military emancipation, Gen.
Cameron who
when Secretary of War suggested the arming of blacks, and Gen. Hunter who later
attempted
again military emancipation. I objected all three because in my eyes it was not yet an
indispensable necessity, but now that negotiation failed I saw that I either had to
surrender the
Union and Constitution or using the colored element to my advantage. Expecting to lose
a little,
but in return gain something bigger in return I went with the latter. The surprising thing
was that
there was no loss, but only gain. There were now a hundred and thirty thousand new
men that
were backing the Union.

If meant to free slaves, why didn’t Emancipation Proclamation free any?

It was meant to as a new source of manpower. The war was headed into its second
summer and
thousands of slaves had escaped their plantation to Union lines. The Federal
government didn’t
have a policy on what to do with them. It was issued as a military measure to accept
them.
While slavery is still an issue that the country is dealing with, the President is fully
focused on the war effort. This is clearly shown through his use of political power to
abolish
slavery only for when it benefits the Union in any way. He will leave no card unplayed if
it
means returning to a whole Union.