gosh a ruddies so you are proving that the reason Southerners fought was to protect the institution of slavery.
Good bye Thom Brennaman I wish you the best of luck in your new career.
- Thread starter Happygoluckky
- Start date
gosh a ruddies whatever the North was fighting for in no way effects what the South was fighting for. The North fought for a dual purpose to save the Union and end slavery. The South as they confessed in the documents issued at the time of secession was fighting to protect the institution of slavery. Read Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech sometime to understand what the Confederacy stood for.
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware were Southern slave states that stayed in the Union. Lincoln did not Constitutionally have the power to order those states to free their slaves. He did have the power to do so in the areas under rebellion and he used the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union Army to do it there. Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment to completely ended slavery Constitutionally in all the states.
Oh and that Kentuckians would oppose ending slavery until 1976 is hardly a surprise. They were just fighting for their state right to enslave other people.
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware were Southern slave states that stayed in the Union. Lincoln did not Constitutionally have the power to order those states to free their slaves. He did have the power to do so in the areas under rebellion and he used the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union Army to do it there. Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment to completely ended slavery Constitutionally in all the states.
Oh and that Kentuckians would oppose ending slavery until 1976 is hardly a surprise. They were just fighting for their state right to enslave other people.
eastside_purple
Well-known member
Again, the focal point of the war was a states right to lawfully own a other human. Your relatives may have been sold on the slippery slope argument, but there really is no denying this war was fought over the right to own another human being.
Any chance 200 years from now some historian will try to explain why same sex marriage became legal, and will give the point of view of one side, then try to claim that was the primary reason?
To me it's like some forensic psychologist solving the motivations of a mass murderer then trying to apply the same motivation to all murders occurring in the same time and region to the same motivation.
I am willing to acknowledge some people were fighting primarily for slavery, or more aptly said, primarily for financial prosperity. Others, who hated slavery, taught primarily for states rights. We can not pigeon hole every person or state with the same motivations.
eastside_purple
Well-known member
Maybe. What do you see as the scenarios for explaining opposition to gay marriage 200 years from now?
I’m not saying everyone fought for the same reasons. German soldiers weren’t all Nazis. Some people fight not for ideology, but because it’s their country/state/home. It’s pretty clear states rights to institutionalize slavery was the focal point (and that rationalization could have come down to morality, economic prosperity and/or just states rights), but the issue of slavery was the focal point for the south without a doubt.
eastside_purple
Well-known member
Why?
y2h
Well-known member
Lincoln didnt go to war to end slavery, it was to preserve the Union. If he could do that and slavery stayed intact he wouldve done it. The Proclamation was to keep the Europeans from sticking their nose in and make it a moral crusade...people fight and support a moral crusade stronger than merely a political/geographic one.Even if you want to argue “states rights” the state right of the institution of slavery was the focal point for the confederacy. There’s just no way around that. ??
MoeDude
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
You forgot to mention that slavery existed in Africa and still does. Again, 200 years ago people were in the beginning stages of knowing it was wrong and the fact the US was one of the first to abolish it shows that this nation was at least taking the first steps towards doing away with the horrible institution. But alas, you obviously don't understand how you can't take beliefs of today and project them on the way people thought and acted 200 years ago.
MoeDude
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Another point revisionist keep ignoring is that the Civil War was not just about slavery. It was about states rights and many other differences in the way the South wanted to be governed versus the North. Yes Slavery became a major issue but that is not the only issue that caused the Civil War.
200 years ago is not when the Civil War began. It began 159 years ago. By that time Canada, Mexico and all the nations of western Europe had outlawed slavery. So the world knew about the evil of slavery and much of it had acted to end the institution. Of course we were the nation that had to fight a bloody Civil War in order to end the institution. And that was because the majority of white southerners fought to preserve a pseudo nation created to protect the evil of chattel slavery.
We went to war over states rights, period. If it was to end slavery the north would have ended it for themselves before going to war. They did not. They waited until after the war and slavery had been ended through the Emancipation Proclamation signed Jan 1, 1863 ( look it up, your 1862 date is incorrect). They waited until states rights were settled giving federal government immense power, and then abolished slavery in the north with the 13th amendment in 1865.
You can pretend the timing was different, and that a year or two makes no difference, but it does. The fact is the south ended slavery before the north.
The Northern states had ended it where they had the Constitutional right to, within their borders. the Proclamation was issued in September, 1862 to go into effect January, 1863, which was 21 months after the war began.
Slavery was already abolished in the North before the war began. The 13th Amendment which began its process toward ratification with the support of Lincoln during the war. It freed the slaves in some of the Southern states that did not leave the Union Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland.
Southerners who fought for the Confederacy were traitors fighting to support slavery.
If we can't agree on what the facts are, there is no hope on agreement on the cause. I looked my dates up this morning and looked at a few articles and books supporting my position. I realize there is much support currently for your view. Best of luck convincing some of us who have likely studied the topic longer than you have been alive.
eastisbest
Well-known member
remove all those other "differences" except slavery and the war still goes. remove the slavery issue and keep all the others and there is no war. EVERY state had issues with balance of power with the Fed.
Slavery and southern economy cannot be separated. They formed the confederacy based upon the issue of expansion of slavery. You think you can make a case they weren't fighting for slavery on home turf? The revisionism comes from apologists from and for the south, whether be reasons for the war or the "can't judge them by modern mentalities."
They knew slavery was evil. It is in the writings of southern leaders. These are facts, they have been posted on these threads. Southern leaders knew the issue would lead to war. THey wrote it. Jefferson knew the issue would lead to war. He wrote it.
Slavery was the issue led to the war. ANything BUT that is revision of the writings of the southern leaders themselves.
Last edited:
I give you credit, you are open to new information. I know many die hard will never be swayed but there is alot of factual information to support my view. take care.
Oh..where I think that a man butt humping another man is disgusting? Yea..I still think that.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
It was an attempt to cause civil unrest in the South, nothing moral about it. Lincoln might have been personally against slavery, but he was willing to allow it as evidenced by the fact that he didn't seek to end it in the North while allegedly engaged in a war to end it in the South.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
Yet they didn't. Your casting 21st century morality on 19th century people falls apart. If the North was fighting to end slavery, why didn't they end it in the North during the war when there were no Southern states to attempt to block it?
Gh0st
Well-known member
Sounds like he's talking about individuals.
I don't come to this board every 20 minutes to respond to every spun up post you goofs can muster.
Lincoln did not have the Constitutional power to end slavery in the areas of the country not in rebellion. He did have the power to end slavery in the areas under rebellion and he did. Also Lincoln supported the effort to pass the 13th Amendment to end slavery throughout the Country. He saw the process to ratify the Amendment begin, put them of course he was assassinated by one of those Southern patriots you so dearly love.
Opposition to slavery was hardly a new concept in 1861. The Northern states had already ended. A top selling book of the time was Uncle Tom's Cabin, plays based on it were widely performer. Abolitionist books and newspapers like the Liberator circulated. People then knew it was evil.
And during the war the process of ending the institution by Constitutional means began as the proposal made it way through Congress and into the ratification process during the war with formal ratification soon afterward.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
Booth was a Yankee but he was a Confederate sympathizer.....
He could have proposed legislation to end it in the North at any time after he took office, he didn't. He could have proposed an Amendment to end it at any point during the course of the war. He didn't. ANY of the North's states, legislators, or even by referendum could have proposed it. They didn't. If the people engaged in the war, couldn't see the "reason" they were fighting and taken steps to remove it from their own lives, it stands to reason that it may indeed have had little to do with it. It wasn't until questions arose about the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation did Lincoln actually support the amendment and even that wasn't apparent until the 1864 election.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
1864 was barely "during the war", and even then the Amendment couldn't pass the House without bribes and coercion during the lame duck session after the 1864 election. What about the union cause was "anti-slavery" that they wasted 3 years and failed to pass the legislation the 1st time until the last 6 months of the conflict?
Booth was virulently anti-Black, who on hearing Lincoln say he would extend suffrage to literate blacks and black veterans, said he would kill him.
1. Lincoln did issue the Emancipation Proclamation and push for the 13th Amendment
2. Nothing Lincoln did except getting elected had any effect on the creation of the Confederacy and what Confederates were fighting for which was the original reason for this discussion. The Confederacy was created for the purpose of protecting slavery and expanding slavery as was shown in the documents of the Secession Conventions. It was an evil state from its creation and those who supported through ignorance or self interest fought for an evil cause and deserve no honored commemoration.