Dear Editor: In Mr. T. Weed’s letter to the opinion column dated February 20, he stated that there is no celebrating Lincoln this President’s Day. He also mentioned that Lincoln brought on the Civil War, not for the noble reason of freeing the slaves, but to keep the agrarian South from divorcing the industrial North. I don’t think so. Lincoln had no intention of changing the condition of slavery in the states where it already existed. In taking the oath of office to uphold the Constitution he had no right or power to do so, and he stated publicly that he would not do what the Constitution would not allow him to do. But he would not stand idly by when the Southern representatives in Congress tried to repeal the Missouri Compromise which was the law of the land and to which Senator Douglas and southern legislators had agreed to uphold. He knew that if slavery were to be extended by law to the Northwest territories, particularly Kansas and Nebraska, it would not be too long before it would be included in every state west of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. It would also be everywhere else that Southern interests wanted it to be, including New Jersey which had numerous farms in the 1800’s. Lincoln, from the time he first saw the horrors of slavery in New Orleans knew that it was morally wrong. Looking at a human being shackled to another human being left him with a feeling of remorse and sympathy that never left him. This, and only this reason was why he dared to come forward and oppose not slavery, but its extension, opposing slavery he could do nothing about. Thus he felt like you do Mr. Tweed, that in time slavery would end because the good Southern people would demand it, but not if it spread, for then the political majority would be on the side of slavery and you and I would not be where we are today. His writings on what he believed in are so numerous and profound that to ignore them ignores a nobleness that few of us possess. His intellect has to rank with the great men and women of history and his writings and speeches attest to that. No other person except God has had more books written about him and it would take you and I a lifetime to read all of them. In 1854 he said something that shows the genius of the man and the universality of his thinking. If A can prove, however, conclusively, that he may of right enslave B, why can’t B match the same argument and prove equally that he may enslave A. You say A is white and B is black. It is color then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker. Take care. By this rule you are to be slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly. You mean that whites are intellectually the superior of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them. Take care again. By this rule you are to be a slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But you say it is a question of interest and if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. Few spoken or written words in history could ever surpass what he knew and believed could happen if slavery were to be extended throughout our land. Slavery existed in many other countries at this time and he could foresee its dominance over all of us if it continued unabated. A more noble man to honor would be difficult to find. Thomas J. Brogan