Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Personally I think it was more about State's rights than slavery.
But slavery was a part of it.
This has been argued numerous times on these forums. I saw this and thought I would add it to the evidence.
Colonel Ty Seidule is the head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
Personally I think it was more about State's rights than slavery.
But slavery was a part of it.
It was about the State's wanting to protect 'their rights' to own human property.
Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.Abraham Lincoln tried to deport slaves to British colonies Daily Mail Online
The Britt uncovered this in archives. Lincoln wanted blacks freed so he could deport them. As property...he couldn't due to the 4th amendment. So...he freed them....and was killed before the deportation plan unfolded.
Lincoln was a man who despised blacks.
Cards on table:Was the Civil War fought over slavery?
How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.
History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.
And don't forget that the red and white colors of the Maryland flag were used as the banner for MD secessionists. That means that those colors need to be removed from the flag and all MD sports teams, etc.How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.
History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.
Personally I think it was more about State's rights than slavery.
But slavery was a part of it.
It was about the State's wanting to protect 'their rights' to own human property.
Exactly right. It was a 4th Amendment war. Lincoln wanted all blacks deported...but couldn't seize them because they were considered property of US citizens.
Yes. But not how you think.
SOUTH: Rich whites owned the slaves. They made up 3% of the South. They also owned the newspapers. They brainwashed many poor farmers to think they were fighting a just war. They werent. Sad. That's what the battle flag reps for SOME Southern whites: being duped and sacrificed to fight for the rich man. But it was about slaves.
NORTH: Abe Lincoln wanted to deport all blacks. Wanted them sent to work in South American and colonies for American interests (Google it. It's true). BUT....the 4th Amendment prevented this....because slaves were property...not citizens. He needed to free the slaves so they could be deportable.
In short....rich Southerners wanted blacks as slaves. Rich Northerners wanted blacks deported. We fought a war over it. Lincoln got shot after victory and never succeeded with his deportation plan. Much like Iraq....the war aftermath didn't go as planned despite winning.
That's it. Ugly on all sides.
How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.
History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.
