And he was stricken with poverty by that same institution that prospered him was abolished, and that's poetic justice and everything to do with the law. Who is holding him for contempt on a legal business? Are all businesses moral if they are legal? Is there justice in all legal businesses? He supposedly repented for being a slave owner so evidently he thought it was wrong even though it was legal. All through this thread members insisted that NBF became an abolitionist at the end of his life. Therefore, he held himself in contempt for being a slave trader, and that's the complete opposite of holding him to modern day standards. Here's part of a quote from one your Lost Cause compadres in post # 161: "He strongly denounced slavery after the war and offered he would fight any man who tried to bring it back. He declared it a failed system." Here's another quote from post #161: "He advocated the passage of the 13th Amendment. This can be found in his Congressional testimony." That's if you believe anything he said in his Congressional testimony? Going by his testimony NBF would have disagreed with you, he thought slavery was wrong no matter if it was legal. He thought that could historically fly. Using the legality of something to promote ethics as subjective is rather dubious thinking.
Regardless of the morals of the world it was still legal??? Talk about dressing something up. Talk about having a penchant for immorality. Whoa.
Really? The historical record disagrees with you. NBF failed at a railroad venture after slavery ended? Evidently, he didn't have much ability outside of selling slaves. Therefore, His so-called considerable ability did not compel him to rise above slavery, at least from the historical records it didn't. Prove it. Never mind, it was the Yankees fault...
You seem to "recall" a newspaper article, but you are not too sure? lol. What does his own sworn testimony prove? You have a guy who owned slaves, fought earnestly against the USA to keep them enslaved who could have had no qualms about committing perjury. I'm quite sure his testimony never held much weight back then, nor now. Sorry, but the evidence points in the direction he perjured himself.