Replies

Lincoln was never an abolitionist. Yeah, right. That's why he joined ran for office in the political party formed around one issue and one issue only: ending slavery.

That's why he railed against slavery in the Lincoln-Douglas debates when running for senator. That's why he wrote the emancipation proclamation at practically the beginning of the civil war and simply debated the correct timing to issue it.

That's why the Southern states were furious when he was elected president and determined at that point to secede.

Yeah, all because Lincoln really didn't want to abolish slavery.

This guy is an idiot.

The rest of his arguments are just as stupid. The idea that a state can secede from the Union just because the other states and peoples representatives across the nation do something it doesn't like? This guy doesn't want a Constitutional Republic, he wants 50 sovereign nations under the old Articles of Confederation.

At least he didn't hammer the 'states rights' issue to death sparing me the need to remind him of the all the contradictios the South engaged in with respect to states rights. (Basically they were for it when it promoted slavery, and were against it when it thwarted slavery).

Here's the bottom-line fact. Southern aristocracy traded in human beings as a commodity and fought a war to preserve that practice. End of story.

Lincoln was never an abolitionist. Yeah, right. ... Here's the bottom-line fact. Southern aristocracy traded in human beings as a commodity and fought a war to preserve that practice. End of story.

Are you really that ignorant? Although Lincoln voiced his opposition to slavery, he was not an abolitionist. He would have gladly tolerated slavery if it meant keeping the Union intact. Besides, how do you explain his lack of effort to free the slaves in the North? His Emancipation Proclamation was aimed specifically at slaves in the South.

Do you really believe that poor Southerners would give up their lives in a war just so a small minority of Southerners could keep their slaves? What about the Northern slave owners who, rather than free their own slaves when their states abolished slavery, sold them south of the Mason-Dixon line for a profit? Were they somehow more noble than their Southern counterparts?

"Here's the bottom-line fact. Southern aristocracy traded in human beings as a commodity"

Here's the actual fact: northern money-grubbers traded in human beings, bringing them to the United States, and, before then, to the British New England colonies, as early as 1638. The first state to legalize enslaving Africans was Massachusetts. Persisting in making all of this strictly a "southern" phenomenon is perpetuating a self serving lie.

NO...it isn't the end of the story. Most of the Confederate Soldiers were fighting for an idea in common with most: Leave me the hell alone, and let me solve my OWN problems. Slavery was the South's business, and they would have abolished it, given time.

Here's the bottom-line fact. Southern aristocracy traded in human beings as a commodity and fought a war to preserve that practice. End of story.

Clueless. To continue slavery, all they had to do was remain in the Union. Here's the bottom-line facts: Yankees traded in human beings as a commodity, and Lincoln wanted a lily-white west.

Here's the bottom-line fact. Southern aristocracy traded in human beings as a commodity and fought a war to preserve that practice. End of story.

Well, Northern aristocracy traded in human beings as a commodity, too. Who do you think was operating the shipping, getting rich off the triangle trade? And do you remember Sojourner Truth? She was born a slave in the Hudson river valley in New York State.

There were free blacks (and free slave-owning blacks) in the south, and slaves in the north (even during the Civil War). All that happened is that the northern states "got religion" about slavery before the southern ones did.

I will not defend chattel slavery; it's an abomination, and good riddance to it...but the North's hands are certainly not clean in that regard.

You are not versed in history enough to be making desultory comments towards others.

The Constitution guaranteed the States the right to freely enter and LEAVE the Union. It also spelled out the right that they did not have to ratify any amendment they disagreed with and said that they could not be compelled by federal government to do so. Also, check your history lessons to find that four of the Confederate States succeeded only AFTER the federal goverment raised the threat of military action. They strongly believed in states' rights enough to defend them.

Hmmmmm.....the federal government compelled them not to leave the Union. This entire struggle was for the consolidation of federal and economic power.

You keep saying that we must focus our attention on terroism. I agree that that is one area that must be observed. Also, the power of the federal government must be carefully checked. That is the heart of this entire debate. If the federal government takes over all power, then the door is open towards a gross abuse of freedom.

There are more problems facing our country that are just as devastating as terrorism.

IMHO

SGT C.
Baghdad, Iraq