It is believed by many that Abraham Lincoln fought to end slavery on the basis of it being morally wrong. That is, however, not true. While Abraham Lincoln was morally against slavery, his political platform concerning slavery was one that was positioned towards what affected white Northerners. Lincoln was a profound supporter of the ideals of the Free Soil Party. The Free Soil Party was a 19th century political party that advocated for the ending of the expansion of slavery into the west. While some members of the party may have been morally against slavery, they didn’t want to do anything about it unless slavery encorached on their lands.America today is fine with slavery as long as it doesn’t occur on it's soil and actively benefits the country. 

We claim to be against slavery and see it as morally abhorrent,and yet we do nothing to end it’s occurence abroad and overseas. In fact, we even businesses and companies that actively particpate in child slavery to continue operating in the United States. Nestle, in the last few years, won a Supreme Court case in which claims of child slavery were brought up against the conglomerate. Despite countless exposes and claims against the company, they were able to walk away free. Plaintiffs in the case against Nestle brought to light complaints of poor working conditions and mental health issues as a result of the slavery. Yet, Nestle did not have to pay any consequences for their crimes against humanity. Why? Well just as the Free Soil Party viewed Slavery as a matter of business so did the modern day U.S Supreme Court, as exhibited in this trial. America was founded on the ideology that it would be a beacon of freedom in a world of oppression,yet time and time again we allow morally reprehensible acts to occur as long as it’s not in the public eye or on our soil. How can we claim to be the land of the free when we actively support companies that hinder freedom?

There will be those that claim that America isn’t the peacekeeper of the world. That we should focus on our own people. But do we not owe it to humanity as a whole to stomp out injustice when we see it? We are okay with going to war against communism in foreign countries as a way to “stop the spread of evil” (sometimes spreading more evil when we try to interfere) but, when it comes to the suffering of innocent individuals around the world we turn our heads because it’s “out of our control.” Is it just possible that we aren’t doing anything because the gains wouldn’t be monetary?