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

To: groanup
And he didn't go to war to free any slave. He went to war to preserve the union, read: power and central government. I know the main reason was not slavery. But it certainly was part of the reasons for the strife between the states. I know Lincoln wasn't some John Brown abolishonist but what I'm saying is that the ends justifed the means.

One thing I do agree with you on is that the school system is telling fantastic liberation stories about Lincoln and I think that's wrong. I just respect this decisions because his life and the country life was on the line and he went for it.

Since my heritage is not in the South I don't have an emotional connections to their defeat or the wrongs commited against them by Lincoln and the North but I like the result of that period with is a slave free country (regardless of originator) compared to one that was based on slavery and agriculture.

109 posted on 02/11/2007 12:16:28 PM PST by KingArthur305
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]


To: KingArthur305
I like the result of that period with is a slave free country (regardless of originator) compared to one that was based on slavery and agriculture.

You seem to be ignoring the factory owners in the north who made millions producing textiles. They had 'slaves' too, some were eight and ten year old children who lived in conditions that were worse than those in the south. Many of them ended up with brown lung disease, if they didn't die or lose a limb in the factory.

There were good and bad in the north and in the south. There were both black and white slaves and believe it or not -- there were black slave owners. Lots of them.

117 posted on 02/11/2007 3:27:05 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | 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