Posted on 12/30/2023 12:56:39 PM PST by Starman417
The North invaded the Southern states because it wished to impose its will upon them.
To understand Lincoln and his puppet masters simply read his 1st inaugural address. Lincoln was the original neocon in search of perpetual war.
When the southern states seceded they told us why they were seceding. The reasons were given in various declaration of causes documents.
All you need is the ability to read those documents to understand their reasons.
A search for the word slave in this page https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states will demonstrate clearly why they were seceding.
The war’s causes and the importance of slavery among them can be debated, but this article loses much credibility by its historical inaccuracies.
The South maintained slavery because it was integral to the economic and social structure. The author seems to be implying that the South would have voluntarily rid itself of slavery except for fear of slave revolts.
The “micro civil war” that erupted in the 1850s was a result of the doctrine of popular sovereignty that was implemented in the Kansas Nebraska Act. Certainly the goal was to make slavery legal in the newly incorporated Kansas Territory, but it had no effect on Missouri, which was admitted as a slave state via the Compromise of 1820.
I’m sure there are others, but I am not wasting my time reading any more of an article by an author who cannot manage to get basic history correct
at the heart of this entire reasoning is the question of whether or not they had the Right to choose a path different than the other states. States rights vs. federal rights has always been a cactus in the middle of a swarm of balloons.
Virginia was the most important among them. Why did Virginia secede?
Stop letting the minority of 4 states speak for the majority of 11.
And for what it's worth, Columnist Paul Craig Roberts explains *WHY* they specifically mentioned "slavery" as their reasons for secession even though Lincoln and the Republicans voted for the Corwin amendment which would protect slavery indefinitely by US Constitutional amendment.
Governments do not give up their power.
I didn't get that impression from the article at all. That must be your own subjectivity giving you that result.
In 1776 when all the states in the Union were slave states, the abolition of slavery in each state was gradual. It picked up over the years, and the process was inevitably in the direction of abolition. I used to know where a GIF map was that showed the effect.
The point is, had everyone just left it alone, the effect would have eventually reached all the states, and it would have been eliminated peacefully.
I thought Lincoln once said if he could preserve the union by embracing slavery, he would. I can’t recall the source so I could be wrong-I won’t swear to it. Does anybody know?
Nimroda is the new John Kerry
This was the ‘real’ insurrection (unlike J6) the Democrats rebelled against the country because they did not accept Lincoln becoming President...war is politics carried out by other means.
Exactly! When did the “all about slavery” myth start getting pushed and by whom?
It started in Academia (no, we’re not talking about wartime propaganda) in the 80s. The people pushing it were LEFTISTS who went into Academia starting in the 60s. It took time for them to climb the ladder to professor status and then obtain tenure. By the 90s, they were department heads in Universities. They made sure to hire nothing but other LEFTISTS who would regurgitate their dogma. Sound familiar? It should. Everything else in Academia worked that way.
Every side claims every war is about morality or “the principle of the thing”. Anybody who has studied history and who has even a lick of sense quickly sees that at least 90% of the time its about one thing and one thing only.....MONEY. Politicians just don’t like to say that because its not what people want to hear. They want to believe their loved ones died for a noble cause rather than just lining others’ pockets....even though usually, they did die for that.
The Democrat slave owners wanted to keep their slaves. Lincoln, the Republican President, said we’ll go to war over this it. The Democrat slave owners stated the war to retain their slaves.
When the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment....when the US congress (AFTER the Southern delegation had withdrawn) passed a resolution stating explicitly that they were not fighting about slavery, it was clear that nobody was fighting about slavery.
“all the slaves in Haiti rebelled, tortured, and killed everyone who was white or even 1/8 white”
And just think: one of their descendants now sits in judgement of the President of the United States, having been christened an “American” by...um...who knows.
Truly unbiased jurisprudence.
Sorry - You missed the point of the discussion. The war was instigated by the North because the North could not exist financially without the Southern tariff revenue. So they had to fight. Even Lincoln could live with Slavery (as stated in the article) - he was fighting to hold the union together.
Correct. And by “hold the union together” what he really meant was keep the cash cows in and keep all that sweet sweet cash flowing Northward to my financial backers.
Today’s Union government is a direct descsendent of that one. Now, instead of tariffs, it’s income tax, forcing ev’s, trying to disarm the populace, jail and no trial for many, killing people in their Ruby Ridge redoubt, burning people in their Waco compound,persecuting and prosecuting political opponents, mandating toilet flushes and certain light bulbs. The list of wrongs is endless. In other words, it’s infinitely worse than it was in 1861.
He stated as much in a publicly published newspaper reply to Horace Greeley, during his Presidency. But don’t be like most people. Please read to the end where he makes the distinction between his purposes of “official duty” and his “personal wishes”. His personal wish was that all men every where could be free.
“As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.