[stand watie]

SORRY, but FEW people north OR south cared a damn about "the plight of the slaves" in 1861. period. end of story.

furthermore, lincoln, the TYRANT, said "in his own hand" that he would assure passage of a Constitutional Amendment to "preserve slavery where it now exists forever".

the FACT is that they SHOULD have cared, but the free persons (of ANY race) mostly did NOT!

after it seemed that the voters were about to toss lincoln out in '64 and/or GB & France were about to recognize the CSA,then & ONLY then did the needLESS war become a "crusade against slavery". otoh, the north did NOT plan to free their slaves, but rather only those in dixie. it's called HYPOCRASY!!!

free dixie,sw

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Lincoln was clearly personally opposed to slavery, read the Lincoln-Douglas debate. He may not have met the modern standard for racial fawning, but he was most certainly opposed to slavery. He was born in Kentucky and was familiar from his youth with the particular institution.

Recall the Dred Scott decision in which Judge Tannery in his concurrence offered the ex judicio opinion that the government of the Northern states had no right to prohibit slavery and invited a challenge by a prospective Northern slave owner. This galvanized the Northern electorate into voting in the candidate of the heretofore obscure antislavery Republican party.

Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, Harper’s Ferry and the election of Lincoln were the long fuse that set off a most avoidable and unnecessary war.

Even with it all, perhaps, perhaps, if that hothead Edmund Ruffin had not fired the first shot on Fort Sumter on his own initiative, the War might have been avoided.

Most of the problems that are with us today, trace to some extent, to the Civil War.