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

To: NJ_gent
Why yes. Even though he was so against slavery that he allowed slave states to continue the practice that were loyal to the Union. Missouri for example.

The man was a Tyrant and his actions gave excuse to all the Socialists, Communists and Fascists to do what they want here and around the world.
11 posted on 02/03/2006 4:14:54 PM PST by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: libertarianben
Why yes. Even though he was so against slavery that he allowed slave states to continue the practice that were loyal to the Union. Missouri for example.

You guys crack me up. You say that Lincoln was an evil dictator, then accuse him of not caring about slavery because he didn't use his dictatorial powers to end it. The fact is that Lincoln had no constitutional authority to end slavery by fiat in states loyal to the Union. He did have such authority in the areas in rebellion, hence the Emancipation Proclamation. What he did do was support the passage of the 13th Amendment by congress and the states, even insisting on it being included in the Republican platform. Missouri didn't wait that long. They abolished slavery themselves in January 1865.

17 posted on 02/03/2006 5:42:23 PM PST by Heyworth ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: libertarianben
Even though he was so against slavery that he allowed slave states to continue the practice that were loyal to the Union.

As he often said, he would do whatever it took to save the union, including allowing slavery to continue. Lincoln was nothing if not a pragmatist. If you call him a tyrant simply because of what he did to preserve the union, I know of no other way to keep the south in the union short of doing many of the things he had to do. If you think he should have let the south secede then there is probably nothing to discuss since it would follow you would think he was a tyrant.

159 posted on 02/05/2006 12:25:37 PM PST by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: libertarianben
Why yes. Even though he was so against slavery that he allowed slave states to continue the practice that were loyal to the Union. Missouri for example.

The man was a Tyrant and his actions gave excuse to all the Socialists, Communists and Fascists to do what they want here and around the world.

I love it when I see people who are completly ignorant of the history of the Civil War lapse into insane rants.

278 posted on 02/07/2006 1:31:57 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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