Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hardastarboard

I heard an economic historian the other day who posited that the Civil War was unnecessary. Other countries had ended slavery without going to war with themselves over it. The US was the exception to that rule. In his view, Lincoln ultimately failed, as he allowed the dispute to drift into war.

This is very true. Lincoln is often touted as a great president, when in fact, he was far from it. the government should have paid to send them back to their homeland, which is where most of them wanted to be.


159 posted on 12/30/2008 8:26:00 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]


To: mojitojoe

The south seceded because of Lincoln’s election...He fought to save the union. A little known fact is that there were slaves in the North as well...the problem was the new states...the North wanted to make it illegal to have slaves in the new states. The civil war was fought to preserve the union not slavery. Fear of losing their rights to own slaves caused the South to secede...however, Lincoln fought to preserve the union. Lincoln was a great president...are you implying that blacks should have been ‘sent back’?


161 posted on 12/30/2008 8:47:42 PM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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