Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur

I didn't overstate or understate the case on Lincoln and slavery at all. His clear objective was "preserving the Union" - not freeing slaves.

But hey, let's just make this simple. There were four slave states in the North and Lincoln let them keep their slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was aimed at the South, but slavery in the North was just ducky.

It was all about tariffs and Lincoln's obstinate devotion to the American System.

And also, I take issue with your "typical southern distortion" nonsense. Although currently in the South, I just moved back after 15 years in New York City and New Jersey.

My view on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with fidelity to the south but rather with criticism of Lincoln, who was a total politician who ruled with an iron fist. Many nations rid themselves of slavery peacefully through compensation. The Industrial Revolution just a few years later would've ended it period. Lincoln wanted to collect the huge tariffs on the South and that was that, and he did so at a price that was far, far, in excess of even what he imagined.


325 posted on 11/22/2006 9:56:38 AM PST by spacecowboynj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies ]


To: spacecowboynj
There were four slave states in the North and Lincoln let them keep their slaves.

Two of them, Missouri and Maryland, ended slavery on their own, as did West Virginia. The 13th amendment, pushed by Lincoln and passed through congress after the Republicans made gains in the 1864 election, freed the rest. You guys always squawk about what the EP didn't do, but forget the 13th.

344 posted on 11/22/2006 10:38:29 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson