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

To: Nifster
Revisionism doesn’t override the writings of the time.

No it doesn't. Lincoln's support for the Corwin Amendment totally destroys the false narrative that has been produced about the conflict. Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley also puts the lie to the claim the war was fought to stop slavery.

Charles Dickens noted at the time that the entire conflict was about money, not "human rights."

"I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North. But the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily to recover it's old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.

Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."

"As to Secession being Rebellion, it is distinctly provable by State papers that Washington, considered it no such thing – that Massachusetts, now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede, again and again – and that years ago, when the two Carolinas began to train their militia expressly for Secession, commissioners sent to treat with them and to represent the disastrous policy of such secession, never hinted it would be rebellion."


23 posted on 03/03/2017 5:23:27 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

Dickens the English author who is such an authority on American history


24 posted on 03/03/2017 5:49:08 PM PST by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Charles Dickens noted at the time that the entire conflict was about money, not "human rights."

Charles Dickens was a proto-socialist. To him, like Marx, everything was about class and money. If you want a more liberty-minded take on the war from an overseas observer, you ought to put down Dickens and pick up J.S. Mill.

29 posted on 03/04/2017 3:54:39 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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