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

To: groanup
Except that your quote doesn't show any such thing. If it's genuine, which is debatable, it shows at most that a certain faction of British bankers were concerned with labor and monetary policy.

It's really very simple. The south seceded to protect slavery from the threat to it that they saw in Lincoln's election. The north went to war to preserve the union and to avenge the attack on Sumter. But in the end, you can't deny the obvious--that the war ended slavery.

108 posted on 07/25/2006 5:19:49 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: Heyworth
But in the end, you can't deny the obvious--that the war ended slavery

The 13th A. ended slavery. The war ended freedom and independence from a central government. Slavery wasn't an issue for the North. It was one of many for the South. Why would the South wage such a vast and reaching war over an issue that was already settled in the US Constitution? Just for the expansion? Why would a slave owner risk "life, fortune and honor" for an issue that was already settled for him? Why would hundreds of thousands of non-slave owners risk the same thing? For expansion of slavery to the West?

110 posted on 07/25/2006 7:38:44 PM PDT by groanup (The IRS violates the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | 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