Originally posted by st dominics previewYou're wrong about Lincoln. He was focused on keeping the country strong and undivided, not on retaining any of the "wealth" in the south. Southern states had slave-based agriculture, northern states had industry and commerce. The south was stagnant, the north had a robust, growing economy. Lincoln knew we were far better together than apart.
of course Lincoln felt that 'preservation of the Union was the overriding principle'.
Vast majority of the wealth of USA came from the Southern states.
They had a totally different way of life. Thus, in such a vast nation, dividing into 2 separate nations was reasonable.
Slavery was/is a side issue. You 'think' it might have continued into ...[text shortened]... tes chose to do on plantations along with the slaves (though without the negative side effects!)
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by HandyAndytake what is left of this thread to the debates forum spanky
You're wrong about Lincoln. He was focused on keeping the country strong and undivided, not on retaining any of the "wealth" in the south. Southern states had slave-based agriculture, northern states had industry and commerce. The south was stagnant, the north had a robust, growing economy. Lincoln knew we were far better together than apart.
Originally posted by HandyAndyDid he tell you this personally?
You're wrong about Lincoln. He was focused on keeping the country strong and undivided, not on retaining any of the "wealth" in the south. Southern states had slave-based agriculture, northern states had industry and commerce. The south was stagnant, the north had a robust, growing economy. Lincoln knew we were far better together than apart.
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by HandyAndyA war that cost over half a million lives would seem a curious way of 'keeping the country strong and undivided'!
You're wrong about Lincoln. He was focused on keeping the country strong and undivided, not on retaining any of the "wealth" in the south. Lincoln knew we were far better together than apart.
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by redbadgerI have to take a moment to thank you.
pity Blundertwat wasn't one of your stats
I've been arguing and fighting with my sister in law for some time. I really don't like her and have no use for her.
Reading your constant jabs at BD have shown me how I might appear to an outsider.
01 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by HandyAndyNo, I do agree.
I think he mentioned it the last time we had lunch together. Do you not agree?
Our Brit friend is right about one thing. Slavery WAS a "side issue" for the President. One month before signing the Emancipation Proclamation (by executive order, by the way), he said this:
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
I think that, unfortunately, Lincoln could never get elected today.