Motoring1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barkum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Many Americans consider Lincoln to be the greatest President - the Great Emancipator - with a reputation for heroism and martyrdom.
And many think that he was a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history not to free the slaves but to build an Empire to equal Britain's.
Who is right? I don't know !!
And many think that he was a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history not to free the slaves but to build an Empire to equal Britain's.
Who is right? I don't know !!
well, the reason the south fought the war was to retain slavery - not because they were particularly brutal people but because cheap labour was the basis of their economy (chiefly in growing cotton). So losing the war was always going to impoverish them: in effect they were still in the middle ages, an agricultural country, while the north was industrial. But I don't think there's any doubt Lincoln was on the side of right.
Actually, many who fought for the South maintained they were fighting for "States Rights" as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Slavery, while an unsavory fact of life in the South, also existed in some northern states as well as the new entrant border states. The Civil War (500,000 casualties so how "civil" was it?) came to be seen as a fight against slavery, since that was an easier "sell" in the North.
While Lincoln was certainly compassionate about suffering of many kinds, he was extremely passionate about preserving the Union.
He was also a man of his times. His writings an actions as a young lawyer clearly underline what we would call today, racisim. But that attitude was shared by nearly everyone in one way or another.
An excerpt from his debate with Fredrick Douglas:
"�I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
"... �I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.�
Contd.
While Lincoln was certainly compassionate about suffering of many kinds, he was extremely passionate about preserving the Union.
He was also a man of his times. His writings an actions as a young lawyer clearly underline what we would call today, racisim. But that attitude was shared by nearly everyone in one way or another.
An excerpt from his debate with Fredrick Douglas:
"�I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
"... �I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.�
Contd.
Contd.
He had an abiding interest in resettling slaves and freed-men to their parents native continent. The nation of Liberia had several years earlier been established for just such a purpose. Linclon stated in a speech delivered in the 1850's:
"If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation."
Personally, i think there was some sort of balance to his positions. On one hand he saw dangers to the country (only some 70 years old at that time) posed by the "peculiar institution" of slavery as well as a sincere concern for his fellow man held in bondage. Most of the time his genuine, heartfelt need to insure the future of the U.S. overrode humanitarian concerns...
He had an abiding interest in resettling slaves and freed-men to their parents native continent. The nation of Liberia had several years earlier been established for just such a purpose. Linclon stated in a speech delivered in the 1850's:
"If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation."
Personally, i think there was some sort of balance to his positions. On one hand he saw dangers to the country (only some 70 years old at that time) posed by the "peculiar institution" of slavery as well as a sincere concern for his fellow man held in bondage. Most of the time his genuine, heartfelt need to insure the future of the U.S. overrode humanitarian concerns...