Facebook. Check out my youtube www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvoF-nK5zj4 Would help me out alot, cheers =].. No... the civil war was not to free the slaves... that was an after thought....
x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - douthit (05/03/2013) [-]
"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..."

-- Abraham Lincoln
#12 to #7 - freeyourmind (05/03/2013) [-]
typical ******* republican...
#14 to #12 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
shut the **** up faggot
User avatar #31 to #12 - douthit (05/03/2013) [-]
I'm a registered Republican, yes, but I'm not a conservative. I've thought about leaving the Party. And you do know that Lincoln was the first Republican, right?
#17 to #12 - drewbridge (05/03/2013) [-]
And it worked, the slaves got freed and the country was wounded, but saved.   
   
Historic Heroes: 1   
you: 0
And it worked, the slaves got freed and the country was wounded, but saved.

Historic Heroes: 1
you: 0
User avatar #16 - Shenanigins (05/03/2013) [-]
No. It was to stop the confederacy from breaking apart from the union. The slavery bit was just to cripple their economy.
User avatar #18 to #16 - mrmuffins (05/03/2013) [-]
funny thing is now they cripple our economy.
******* , not black people.
User avatar #24 to #16 - blokrokker (05/03/2013) [-]
brutusantony is pretty much right, but I was taught that it was because France and Spain were friends of the Confederacy, and freeing the slaves (notably, only the Southern slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation) meant that the two nations would have been seen as riding to the defense of slavery, which was outlawed everywhere but the US at the time. Not the best thing for international relations, I'm sure. Regardless of whether it was Britain, France, or Spain, it was only for the sake of preventing foreign aid.
User avatar #20 to #16 - brutusantony (05/03/2013) [-]
nein...the slave thing was done to keep the british from siding with them...The British needed their cotton, but Britain was against slavery. By making all slaves in the rebelling states free, it forced the British to side with the Union, or at least stay out of it.
User avatar #27 to #20 - Shenanigins (05/03/2013) [-]
I didn't know that, thank you.
User avatar #1 - maxreuben (05/02/2013) [-]
No... the civil war was not to free the slaves... that was an after thought....
#30 to #1 - slimtheshady (05/03/2013) [-]
Anon has a point. With a free-soil, Republican president, the South was convinced that slavery would not be allowed to spread to the west, which would endanger their unique way of life, and so they seceded. The North, although initially fighting because secession was not legal in their eyes, came to believe the war should be worth something more than just saving the Union, as it had cost them extensively in money and blood. So, Lincoln took advantage of this, turning the war to save the Union into something more, i.e. a war to end slavery. After the war, Lincoln himself was a moderate when it came to Reconstruction, as many northerners wanted complete (legal/economic/and social) equality for black,s whereas Lincoln only desired legal equality.
#19 to #1 - anon (05/03/2013) [-]
That's simplifying it a bit. The Southerners originally split mainly because the north was limiting expansion of slavery to the west. However, though this was the cause of the war, many Northerners, including Lincoln, saw themselves as fighting primarily to preserve the Union and not so much to free the slaves.
#2 to #1 - glassofmilk (05/03/2013) [-]
this man is correct!    
it was actually about states rights over federal rights.   
   
and btw repost
this man is correct!
it was actually about states rights over federal rights.

and btw repost
User avatar #3 to #2 - eopfroggr (05/03/2013) [-]
Lincoln originally freed the south slaves, leaving the north as slaves during the war and to hurt the south during the war.
User avatar #4 - ForReal (05/03/2013) [-]
Lincoln didn't even think of helping the slaves until one of his advisers brought the issue up.
#8 - telamatoes (05/03/2013) [-]
Lincoln only really said he was moving to end slavery later in the war and mostly just to gain support from England, or at least to make sure they didn't interfere. Before that England largely favored the south because of the cotton trade.
User avatar #6 - teoferrazzi (05/03/2013) [-]
oh I get it, she's black
0
#13 - rjsepicfailure has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #11 - Lambda ONLINE (05/03/2013) [-]
Actually it was fought over state's rights, and to save the union. The ending of slavery was more of a minor result of the war.
User avatar #15 to #11 - bloodyshart (05/03/2013) [-]
If slavery didn't end, we wouldn't have artists like Lil Wayne.


Too bad slavery had to end.
 Friends (0)