Was Lincoln an abolitionist, or just upholding the law? why?
410475
Lincoln was not an abolitionist at first, but when Uncle Tom's Cabin was released, he believed it was wrong. He wasn't just upholding the law because then, it was not illegal to have slaves. The 13th Amendment wasn't made until after the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.
620938
Lincoln asked them to abolish slavery. The Southern Sates did not agree as that would mean losing their entire workforce which worked in their plantations and farms and were the source of their wealth and economy.\n\nFaced with no choice, the Southern States left, what followed was the Civil War.
1131332
Lincoln,\n\nhe was from an age of true MEN w/ both ethics and morals being in office.\n\nHe was better educated, both socially, as well as academically...and he had WORK ETHIC!! He failed a LOT before being finally voted into office.\n\nClinton, I have no problems with. While ethically he could have been better (marriage/affair problems and such)....he was a great president both economically and in terms of foreign relations.\n\nBush, has caused nothing but dissention and discord since his inauguration.....
523732
President Lincoln was the greatest because he saved the Union. Most of the leaders did not have the courage to take the necessary action.
878314
President Abraham Lincoln.
868217
DuBois saw Lincoln as a whole being. He appreciated what he did  with the E.P. of 1863, and I think that he hopes that Lincoln believed what he did was right. He also saw ,what to some of the more refined, aristocratic politicians were Lincoln's less appealing qualities.  Perhaps DuBois found this to be  the basis of Lincoln's understanding for the situation of the slave and the need to rectify the situation .Lincoln also realized that if the country was allowed to be driven apart that the truth in United we stand, divided we fall would become only too real. Washington started it, Lincoln held it together and Churchill saved it. Our country and freedom. And yes I am, as my name would suggest from the South.
984946
Just exactly who is Aberham lincoln?\nI know Abraham did not start the tradition.
343553
Lincoln would have forgiven the South and let them back in the Union with enough for sight to heal the wounds of a fractured country. Andrew Johnson wanted the same but not enough of Lincolns power or influence to carry it through. Because Lincoln was assassinated bitterness and unforgiveness prevailed even to this day.
1144591
First, it is true: Lincoln said he wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.  "My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia."  (Ottawa, August 21, 1858) \n\nThis is his words, check on his speech in Ottawa August 21 of 1858. But it was Monroe that actually sent some back.  LINCOLN did not send any slaves back to Africa.
916215
While Lincoln had bad feelings about slavery he had even worse feelings about Blacks as a race.  So while St. Peter and St. Paul and even Jesus seemed to have had little objection to slavery they would have had serious objections to Lincolns attitude toward Blacks.\n\nLincoln was a great man and a great president but his views on human rights for ALL races would have disappointed Jesus, Peter and Paul.\n\nIn the 1960's I think Peter and Paul would have gone with the civil rights activists.  Slavery hadn't been a question for 100 years but the HUMAN rights of Blacks had never really come true for them.
1109324
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
792664
My Dear Yankee Friend,\n\n  You are correct it is an interesting question but I am afraid my answer would not be as nearly as interesting, especially after seeing the answers you have all ready received.\n   I was unaware that Secession was or is against the law.  Even though one of the main things solved by the War was the question from the founding fathers and Lincoln whether or not the Republic would survive.  It did!\n\n    I cannot believe the answers about equality and the other nonsense but the War did end slavery with the 13 th amendment.  I wonder how many people realize that the 14 th amendment was never legally ratified?\n\n    The War decided that agriculture was to be replaced by manufacturing.\n\n    The War decided how far the Union –Northerners-Yankees would go to enforce their will on others; that the rights of the citizen; the Constitution meant and mean nothing.  It proved that they are willing to sacrifice the lives and properties of civilians, has anything changed?\n\nGod Bless You and The Southern People.
1007419
You're a blabbering idiot....try reading something instead of posting inane comments masquerading as questions..\n\nThe Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862, was a preliminary announcement outlining the intent of the second part, which officially went into effect January 3, 1863, during the second year of the American Civil War. It was Abraham Lincoln's declaration that all slaves would be emancipated in all states which had seceded from the Union and which had not returned to federal control by January 1, 1863. The ten affected states were individually named in the second part. Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. Specific exemptions were stated for 48 counties of Virginia designated to become the state of West Virginia, and also for New Orleans and several named parishes in Louisiana already under Union control. That is, areas under Union control on January 1, 1863 were not affected. Lincoln did not think he had legal authority over these areas under his Constitutional war powers.\n\nLincoln himself had declared he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. In addition, freeing slaves was still a risky political act, since there were still slave states loyal to the Union and the initial war aims were centered on preserving the Union rather than freeing slaves. As such, the proclamation was a military order issued by Lincoln in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress, or a constitutional amendment.
48705
It was mostly political, the abolition movement was very strong in the north, and obviouslty opposed in the south being it powered their mostly agricultural society...(there weren't a lot of farm Machines back then). Political force threatened to divide the country. Lincoln didn't want the country to divide the country on his watch...(wouldn't have looked too good in the history books). The abolition movement would never have lost steam, the industrial north had the upper hand so reasonably Lincoln sided with the north...that's just a practical view....But he also had a personal reasons for choosing the ending of slavery.
394161
Yes, it is true. Good luck doing it though. Very tough. Abraham Lincoln was a practicing attorney, but had a 3rd grade education. That was 150+ years ago though.
353188
I'm not sure "greatness" and "improving the state of the nation" should be the same yardsticks.  I consider Lincoln the greatest man because he worked his way up from poverty, was a great writer, thought deeply about philosophy and religion instead of just accepting the easy dogma of the culture or of one denomination, overcame depression, kept a sense of humor and humility, and was a skilled politician in the best sense of the word.  I'm probably overlooking many other aspects of his greatness as a human being.  You could argue that he did the most for improving the state of the nation by leading a second revolution with a goal of real equality, not just for prosperous white males, and getting rid of slavery.\n\nFor improving the state of the nation, it's a close call with Teddy Roosevelt, though.  Roosevelt led the way in taking the country back from the Robber Barons, who had trampled the working class for over a generation.  That's an aspect of American history that isn't covered much, but it certainly is relavent to today's situation, where the president is rabid about concentrating more wealth in the hands of the top 1% while the bottom 50% controls 2.5% of the private wealth of the nation
461280
Here's a better question? Why is there a black histoy month?  Why not just study it with the rest of history for the whole year? Or let's give everyone else a history month too and not discuss history outside of those monthes.\n\nAlso, no one mentionedthis but it's a well known fact that Lincoln did freed slaves as a last resort.  It's like like the guy did it willingly, he did it beacuse he needed more men in the army and slaves are either going to desert, attack owners, or just have no morale otherwise, so he freed them.  Done deal.