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

To: groanup
Oh brother, more neo-Confederate "everybody did it therefore the civil war wasn't about slavery and Lincoln was like Hitler or Stalin."

Well, it was the north and Lincoln that abolished slavery. The south fought to maintain slavery.
2 posted on 03/02/2003 8:03:41 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jlogajan
The south fought to maintain slavery.

Well, several of my discendents fought for the South, and they didn't own a single slave. The notion that the North was 'fighting to abolish slavery' came as an afterthought to Northern Politicians. It was used to fire up the population against the South seperating from the Union. No amount of Yankee historical BS can convince me otherwise.

And I don't think Lincoln was like Hitler or Stalin, I'd compare him to Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il, because they, like Lincoln during the Civil War, imprisoned people that disagree with them.

9 posted on 03/02/2003 8:27:31 AM PST by Pern (It's good to know who hates you, and it's good to be hated by the right people - Johnny Cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: jlogajan
"Well, it was the north and Lincoln that abolished slavery"

So it says in most government school history books.

11 posted on 03/02/2003 8:40:10 AM PST by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: jlogajan
"Well, it was the north and Lincoln that abolished slavery."

BS. If it wasn't Lincoln's goal at the beginning of the war then it certainly was not his main purpose. It only became a popular plank once the North felt assured of victory.

12 posted on 03/02/2003 8:44:10 AM PST by fightu4it (allyourbasearebelongtous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: jlogajan
I hope you are being sarcastic. The south did not fight to maintain slavery. There were more significant reasons for the Civil War.
14 posted on 03/02/2003 8:52:20 AM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: jlogajan
Well, it was the north and Lincoln that abolished slavery

Lincoln ONLY abolished slavery in the seceding states NOT the northern states
And he only did to try and bring the seceding states back into the union
15 posted on 03/02/2003 9:03:34 AM PST by uncbob ( building tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: jlogajan
My great grandfather was a blockade runner for the Confederacy.

He refused to own slaves. He considered it evil.

He was right.

If I suddenly found myself in antebellum America, I would be working for the Underground Railroad. Most of us would.

"Written history is always subject to a kind of cultural amnesia. Some of it is deliberately forgotten and some of it is inadvertently lost"
Exactly.

Slavery is one of the most hideous evils ever to afflict mankind. Its evil exists in the world today! It must be abolished.

Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents America ever produced. The Gettysburg Address is a sacred document.

Nothing is more dangerous than self-deception--denial.

16 posted on 03/02/2003 9:06:19 AM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: jlogajan
Oh brother, more neo-Confederate "everybody did it therefore the civil war wasn't about slavery and Lincoln was like Hitler or Stalin."

Really? I didn't read any such thing in this article. Sounded more to me like true history finally being told, warts and all.

Well, it was the north and Lincoln that abolished slavery.

Really? Lincoln abolished slavery? When did that happen?
35 posted on 03/02/2003 11:54:34 AM PST by wasp69 (The time has come.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: jlogajan
Simple solutions for simple minds. Life is seldom black and white, and is never as simple as most would like. Regardless of how hard folks try to neatly package the WBTS and its causes, it doesn't lend itself to neatness. The fact that so many folks see it so many different ways lends weight to the fact that the whole ordeal was vastly more complex than most are willing to admit. Simplify it if you like, but you're mistaken if you think it was that cut and dry. Rich man's war, poor man's fight. The simple man usually doesn't have a vested interest in politics or "noble" causes. Most just do whatever is required to get through and get on with their lives. True today and, no doubt true back then.
48 posted on 03/03/2003 4:18:50 AM PST by canalabamian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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