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

To: DoodleDawg
It guarantees that the very wealthy don't have to go. Apparently they were willing to see everyone else go as cannon fodder.

Oh, but in your side's estimation, the South were evil anyways, so what does it matter what they do? The question is, why was the Union doing the same sort of evil, and excusing a *LOT* more people in doing it?

Weren't they supposed to be the "good guys?" Seems like enslaving people to go die in a war they didn't want to fight wasn't good at all. Not very "anti-slavery" either.

1,244 posted on 10/03/2016 11:25:36 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
The question is, why was the Union doing the same sort of evil, and excusing a *LOT* more people in doing it?

I'm assuming the question is rhetorical since nothing could change your mind on it anyway.

Weren't they supposed to be the "good guys?" Seems like enslaving people to go die in a war they didn't want to fight wasn't good at all. Not very "anti-slavery" either.

Remember it was the Confederacy who extended all enlistments for the duration of the war, state's rights be damned, while the Union never resorted to that. So in 1864 when all the three year enlistments were running out the Union army could have just melted away. Instead the Union soldiers reenlisted in overwhelming numbers to continue the war. Maybe it was because they were fighting for something greater than slavery? And the Confederates had to force their men into the ranks because slavery was all they had?

1,248 posted on 10/03/2016 12:39:42 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1244 | 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