It is a possibility because Lincoln was the man who drafted the Emancipation Proclamation, which eventually led to the slaves gaining their freedom, but with individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., I'm sure that slavery would eventually of been abolished. So without Lincoln, I think slavery just would of lasted longer.
yes. in 1847, two years before election, he owned more than 100 slaves.
It wasnt a film. He was watching the play Our American Cousin.
yes. He wasnt as opposed to slavery as many people think. He was just interested in conserving the nation.
lingcon wasnt a president...its Lincoln, he's the 17th president. the 18th is Andrew Johnson.
The South wanted more control of their own states. Lincoln did not support this. Also, the South supported slavery, and Lincoln didn't.
he thought it wasnt fair and that it should be illegal..he got what he wanted...he wrote a speech that was called the Emancipation Proclamation and it stated that he thought slavery was unfair and cruel.....hope this answers your question
it wasnt different
When Lincoln stood firm his anti-slavery stand and the Confederacy refused to return to the Union, the Civil War brought out and Lincoln was determined to win because winning would force the Confederacy back into the Union and could outlaw slavery. In 1862, he established the Emancipation Proclamation in which he gave freedom to all slaves in the Confederate states that did not return to the Union by the New Year in 1863. Then, when the war ended in 1865, he promoted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made it unconstitutional and therefore illegal for slavery to exist in the United States.
no he wasnt George Washington was a wealthy landowner
The civil war was fought over states rights, it wasnt until the 1960s that jews changed the history books to make it out like the civil war was over slavery.
the africans were untreated and it really wasnt fair for them.
Republicans