Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Slavery was dying as an institution by the 1860s, because it wasn't cost effective any more (or was heading that way). Slaves were very expensive ($1000-2000 in the dollars of the time), and had to be fed and sheltered. And if they were injured or killed, the owner (as well as the slave of course) was SOL. The railroads and other hazardous construction projects (Erie Canal for example) were not done with slaves, because of the risk to the "investment". As we ended up with more and more imigrant labor, they were actualy cheaper to employe than slaves were to own.
Slavery could have been ended without a shot being fired. All it would have taken was the simple action of the federal government buying the slaves from their owners and then turning them loose. Instead, due to Lincoln's intransigance, he drove the country to a civil war that ended up costing 625,000 lives. Worse, he extended the war and cost more lives as leverage to pass the 13th amendment among NORTHERN states and representatives.
Slavery was dying as an institution by the 1860s, because it wasn't cost effective any more (or was heading that way). Slaves were very expensive ($1000-2000 in the dollars of the time), and had to be fed and sheltered. And if they were injured or killed, the owner (as well as the slave of course) was SOL. The railroads and other hazardous construction projects (Erie Canal for example) were not done with slaves, because of the risk to the "investment". As we ended up with more and more imigrant labor, they were actualy cheaper to employe than slaves were to own.
Slavery could have been ended without a shot being fired. All it would have taken was the simple action of the federal government buying the slaves from their owners and then turning them loose. Instead, due to Lincoln's intransigance, he drove the country to a civil war that ended up costing 625,000 lives. Worse, he extended the war and cost more lives as leverage to pass the 13th amendment among NORTHERN states and representatives.
Slavery was dying as an institution by the 1860s, because it wasn't cost effective any more (or was heading that way). Slaves were very expensive ($1000-2000 in the dollars of the time), and had to be fed and sheltered. And if they were injured or killed, the owner (as well as the slave of course) was SOL. The railroads and other hazardous construction projects (Erie Canal for example) were not done with slaves, because of the risk to the "investment". As we ended up with more and more imigrant labor, they were actualy cheaper to employe than slaves were to own.
Slavery could have been ended without a shot being fired. All it would have taken was the simple action of the federal government buying the slaves from their owners and then turning them loose. Instead, due to Lincoln's intransigance, he drove the country to a civil war that ended up costing 625,000 lives. Worse, he extended the war and cost more lives as leverage to pass the 13th amendment among NORTHERN states and representatives.
Dying?
Sorry, but even one more second of slavery was too long.
Abraham Lincoln, our greatest President, was obligated to defend the United States against the attack by South Carolina forces at Fort Sumter, and was further obligated to defend the United States against an attemtped rebellion by the slave holding states.
The fact that he brought about the end of slavery and the fact that he preserved the Union are the two things that make him our greatest president.
I must say, though, that you're a bit off in your count. The total of our dead was almost 400,000, but I frankly don't care in the least how many of the enemy were killed.
Yup. I hate war, but I have no sympathy for the Confederacy. They brought that war and the century of economic and social backwardness on themselves.
Slavery was dying as an institution by the 1860s, because it wasn't cost effective any more (or was heading that way). Slaves were very expensive ($1000-2000 in the dollars of the time), and had to be fed and sheltered. And if they were injured or killed, the owner (as well as the slave of course) was SOL. The railroads and other hazardous construction projects (Erie Canal for example) were not done with slaves, because of the risk to the "investment". As we ended up with more and more imigrant labor, they were actualy cheaper to employe than slaves were to own.
Slavery could have been ended without a shot being fired. All it would have taken was the simple action of the federal government buying the slaves from their owners and then turning them loose. Instead, due to Lincoln's intransigance, he drove the country to a civil war that ended up costing 625,000 lives. Worse, he extended the war and cost more lives as leverage to pass the 13th amendment among NORTHERN states and representatives.
You are right. It could have been but it wasn’t. That was not Lincoln's fault. He did not fire on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln didn’t request the Army of the South meet the army of the north at Bull Run....twice.
As for intransigence, one could argue (and many historians have) that every president from Franklin Pierce to James Buchannan held vastly more responsibility for the Civil War than Lincoln.
What Abe did was committing to preventing the dissolution of the Union and he had the fortitude to withstand the casualties that commitment brought about.
(There are many here who think me an idiot when I say this, but it is my firm opinion that neither Lincoln nor any other leader at the time had any choice in the matter. The die was cast and before the dust was to settle America would pay a horrendous price).
Lincoln's aggressive war against the Confederates caused 625,000 deaths. After 2 years of battle, he issued the Emancipatin Proclamation correcting the terrible wrong of slavery. Is aggressive action causing so many deaths negated by the EP?
If yes, compare freeing the Iraqis from slavery of Saddam and Bush causing 3500 deaths.
My opinion, both Lincoln and Bush were wrong to attack and cause the damage they caused.
Well, let's see. Let's all drive around the south side of Chicago, or Detroit at midnight and see what a good idea that was.
20yrsinBranson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
