God Dan wrote:

> Really?  Did you read the document you attached at the bottom of 
> your message?  

I never had an issue with your post... I had an issue with these TWO 
statements.

SK> Lincoln "freed the slaves" of the South as a tactic ONLY to limit 
SK> the South's economic ability!

BA> Actually, the "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued to prevent
BA> Britain from recognizing the Confederate government.

> Didn't I already state that?

Yes you did.. and I was supporting you.

>  AP> It was not until Congress ratified the 13th Amendment that there was a
>  AP> permanent and lasting abolition of slavery.
> 
> It was at about the same time, if not shortly thereafter, that the 
> last Northern State abolished slavery within its borders. 

Very few slaves were owned by the Northern States... the North was known 
more for ship building and technical jobs... there was little plantation 
agriculture in the north that required slaves.  What few slaves that 
were owned in the North were treated incredibly well in comparison to 
those in the south.

Now let's flip the coin and think about this for a moment.

Lincoln knew, at that time, that the slaves would not be welcome in the 
north and did not have the technical skills to find gainful 
employment.... so in a sense he knew they would go to the military where 
they would be given a nice uniform and a warm-fuzzy feeling of value so 
to speak.  They were then sent off to fight the south where many of them 
died.  After the civil war was over they were sent off to the west to 
fight the Indians.

Seems like the slaves willingly exchanged one master for another.

Allen
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32