Sir, – I refer to Breda O’Brien’s column “Republican Party needs to do more than oppose abortion” (Opinion & Analysis, July 2nd).
She is quite correct in describing Lincoln as a moderate in the anti-slavery camp. Unlike his more radical associates, he did not seek the immediate, outright abolition of slavery throughout the United States. But nor was he prepared to leave the issue to be decided by each individual state. His position was that, as the US expanded westward, no new state admitted to the Union should be slave-owning.
Slavery could, however, continue in the states in which it was already established.
And when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it applied only to slaves in those states that had joined the Confederacy.
Sarah Moss: People trying to sell diets enrage me on good days. On bad days I feel inadequate
Princess Margaret’s Galway island visit: ‘By the cut of you, you’re a lady. Will you take a drink?’
Analysis: EU leaders agree but disagree on defence
We built a bungalow on what was initially a boggy patch in my parents’ sloped front garden in Kerry
Slaves in the slave-owning states that hadn’t joined the Confederacy – Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri – were not freed.
Lincoln’s policy on slavery is not, therefore, a precedent for the US Supreme Court’s decision to repeal Roe v Wade and return the question of abortion to the states.
There is no line of descent from Lincoln to Alito et al. – Yours, etc,
FELIX M LARKIN,
Cabinteely,
Dublin 18.
