The slaves would have been freed eventually. The industrial revolution made them obsolete [not cost effective], and social pressure would have continued to mount. 620 to 700k people died in the Civil War, to me that is not justifiable.
The end result of the war was not only free slaves (good), but consolidation of power in the federal government (bad). I feel Lincoln completely disregarded the spirit of the 10th Amendment by fighting the war. So I stand by my scumbag Lincoln meme.
The slaves would have been freed eventually. The industrial revolution made them obsolete [not cost effective], and social pressure would have continued to mount. 620 to 700k people died in the Civil War, to me that is not justifiable.
The end result of the war was not only free slaves (good), but consolidation of power in the federal government (bad). I feel Lincoln completely disregarded the spirit of the 10th Amendment by fighting the war. So I stand by my scumbag Lincoln meme.
so was it morally better to let a few million linger in slavery vs having a hand in a more centralized government? which is the greater evil?
so was it morally better to let a few million linger in slavery vs having a hand in a more centralized government? which is the greater evil?
on the other hand, the slave states decided they would seceed if he was elected . . . .
And the decision was forced on him by the sheer magnitude of the war.
see this discussion
https://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/09/abraham-lincolns-great-awakening-from-moderate-to-abolitionist
of course, is it a greater crime to free the slaves, or let them stay enslaved in order to avoid a war.
There is a long tradition in theology and elsewhere about the concept of a "Just war"
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
Is fighting to free a nation of slaves (millions of people) suitable justification for war?
If you are fighting a war, is the freeing of a nation of slaves (millions of people) a justifiable tactic?