Was the Civil War fought over slavery?

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Ever listened to the Maryland state song? Whoa!!!

Yeah, the lefty fascists have already removed its melody from the bell tower on the U of MD campus. They've replaced white with green in promoting school colors painted on utility items. They want to reflect their AGW nazism.
Fascists believe in rewriting or reinterpreting history to fit their bigoted agendas.

 

[Liminal]

Then provide the records- or links to them.

As the very author you cited says:

I will issue the same challenge to Stauffer that I have to anyone who has made claims about the existence of black Confederate soldiers. Please find me one wartime account from a Confederate soldier, officer or politician who mentions that black men fought as soldiers in the army. I am not asking for fifty or one hundred, just one.

It is a fact that the South paid pensions to black veterans I don't have time to go dig it up so that you can just ignore it.

If you really want to know the Truth of the matter, then dig it up your own damned self. I really could not care less if you live under one more ideological nit wittery or not.

So you have nothing to support your claim.

LOL....not a shock there.

"African Americans who had served with the Confederate army were not included – except in Mississippi, which had included African Americans in the state’s pension program from its beginning in 1888. It was not until 1921 that another state extended the eligibility for pensions to African Americans who had served as servants with the Confederate army. Unfortunately, black southerners who applied for Confederate pensions in the 1920s were, for the most part, very old men. Consequently, the number of black pensioners was small compared to the large number of Confederate veterans in the states that had allowed for pensions decades earlier. For example, Mississippi, which was the only state to include African Americans from its program’s beginning in 1888, had 1,739 black pensioners; North Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1927 had 121; South Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1923, had 328; Tennessee, which first offered pensions in 1921, had 195; and Virginia, which first offered pensions in 1924, had 424 black pensioners. "

Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War Mississippi History Now

I have a question for you- are you a poor reader- or a liar?

The very article you cite says that the pensions were not for black soldiers:

African Americans who had served with the Confederate army were not included – except in Mississippi, which had included African Americans in the state’s pension program from its beginning in 1888. It was not until 1921 that another state extended the eligibility for pensions to African Americans who had served as servants with the Confederate army. Unfortunately, black southerners who applied for Confederate pensions in the 1920s were, for the most part, very old men. Consequently, the number of black pensioners was small compared to the large number of Confederate veterans in the states that had allowed for pensions decades earlier. For example, Mississippi, which was the only state to include African Americans from its program’s beginning in 1888, had 1,739 black pensioners; North Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1927 had 121; South Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1923, had 328; Tennessee, which first offered pensions in 1921, had 195; and Virginia, which first offered pensions in 1924, had 424 black pensioners.


Initially, Mississippi’s pensions for Confederate veterans were limited to soldiers or sailors and their former servants with a disability sustained during the war, such as the loss of a limb, that prevented them from engaging in manual labor, and to women who had been widowed during the war and had not remarried. In 1892, Mississippi expanded the eligibility for pensions to include veterans, their former servants, and unmarried widows “who are now resident in this State, and who are indigent and not able to earn support by their own labor.”


Pension applications from African Americans in Mississippi were forwarded to the state auditor’s office by pension boards in each county. These applications are now on file in the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, where they are intermingled with applications from white soldiers and widows, all of which are filed alphabetically by last name. Black pensioners can be identified by the special application form that servants were required to use. A review of the applications for Confederate pensions in Mississippi – about 36,000 – reveals 1,739 applications from African Americans.

Pension applications
Pension applications for African Americans were different from those used for soldiers or widows. Questions on the applications for servants asked for the applicant’s name, age, the name of the person he had served during the Civil War, and the dates of his service. Questions also asked the unit to which the applicant’s master had been assigned

The pension statutes in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee, for example, were intended primarily to reward the service of servants or cooks whose masters were assigned to units in the Confederate army. Despite state variations, an overall pattern of service among the black pensioners is clear. On average, 85 percent of the black pensioners served as servants or cooks with the Confederate army.

A central question about these men is whether some of them ever became soldiers. Unfortunately, applications submitted by black pensioners do not address this question. By filling out a servant’s application, these men acknowledged at the onset that they were noncombatants, not soldiers.

Why do you assume that all black slaves were owned by whites?

No black that owned slaves could have brought their servants? IF the Civil War were truly about maintaining slavery, then wouldn't some black slave owners not also fight for the South?

You have not thought this subject through other than to regurgitate some shit you read in a leftwing propaganda booklet.

I am done with this subject as I just don't have the time to waste in idiots like yourself.

All these little anecdotes are essentially meaningless.

 

[Syriusly]

Then provide the records- or links to them.

As the very author you cited says:

I will issue the same challenge to Stauffer that I have to anyone who has made claims about the existence of black Confederate soldiers. Please find me one wartime account from a Confederate soldier, officer or politician who mentions that black men fought as soldiers in the army. I am not asking for fifty or one hundred, just one.

It is a fact that the South paid pensions to black veterans I don't have time to go dig it up so that you can just ignore it.

If you really want to know the Truth of the matter, then dig it up your own damned self. I really could not care less if you live under one more ideological nit wittery or not.

So you have nothing to support your claim.

LOL....not a shock there.

"African Americans who had served with the Confederate army were not included – except in Mississippi, which had included African Americans in the state’s pension program from its beginning in 1888. It was not until 1921 that another state extended the eligibility for pensions to African Americans who had served as servants with the Confederate army. Unfortunately, black southerners who applied for Confederate pensions in the 1920s were, for the most part, very old men. Consequently, the number of black pensioners was small compared to the large number of Confederate veterans in the states that had allowed for pensions decades earlier. For example, Mississippi, which was the only state to include African Americans from its program’s beginning in 1888, had 1,739 black pensioners; North Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1927 had 121; South Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1923, had 328; Tennessee, which first offered pensions in 1921, had 195; and Virginia, which first offered pensions in 1924, had 424 black pensioners. "

Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War Mississippi History Now

I have a question for you- are you a poor reader- or a liar?

The very article you cite says that the pensions were not for black soldiers:

African Americans who had served with the Confederate army were not included – except in Mississippi, which had included African Americans in the state’s pension program from its beginning in 1888. It was not until 1921 that another state extended the eligibility for pensions to African Americans who had served as servants with the Confederate army. Unfortunately, black southerners who applied for Confederate pensions in the 1920s were, for the most part, very old men. Consequently, the number of black pensioners was small compared to the large number of Confederate veterans in the states that had allowed for pensions decades earlier. For example, Mississippi, which was the only state to include African Americans from its program’s beginning in 1888, had 1,739 black pensioners; North Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1927 had 121; South Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1923, had 328; Tennessee, which first offered pensions in 1921, had 195; and Virginia, which first offered pensions in 1924, had 424 black pensioners.


Initially, Mississippi’s pensions for Confederate veterans were limited to soldiers or sailors and their former servants with a disability sustained during the war, such as the loss of a limb, that prevented them from engaging in manual labor, and to women who had been widowed during the war and had not remarried. In 1892, Mississippi expanded the eligibility for pensions to include veterans, their former servants, and unmarried widows “who are now resident in this State, and who are indigent and not able to earn support by their own labor.”


Pension applications from African Americans in Mississippi were forwarded to the state auditor’s office by pension boards in each county. These applications are now on file in the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, where they are intermingled with applications from white soldiers and widows, all of which are filed alphabetically by last name. Black pensioners can be identified by the special application form that servants were required to use. A review of the applications for Confederate pensions in Mississippi – about 36,000 – reveals 1,739 applications from African Americans.

Pension applications
Pension applications for African Americans were different from those used for soldiers or widows. Questions on the applications for servants asked for the applicant’s name, age, the name of the person he had served during the Civil War, and the dates of his service. Questions also asked the unit to which the applicant’s master had been assigned

The pension statutes in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee, for example, were intended primarily to reward the service of servants or cooks whose masters were assigned to units in the Confederate army. Despite state variations, an overall pattern of service among the black pensioners is clear. On average, 85 percent of the black pensioners served as servants or cooks with the Confederate army.

A central question about these men is whether some of them ever became soldiers. Unfortunately, applications submitted by black pensioners do not address this question. By filling out a servant’s application, these men acknowledged at the onset that they were noncombatants, not soldiers.

Why do you assume that all black slaves were owned by whites?

No black that owned slaves could have brought their servants? IF the Civil War were truly about maintaining slavery, then wouldn't some black slave owners not also fight for the South?

You have not thought this subject through other than to regurgitate some shit you read in a leftwing propaganda booklet.

I am done with this subject as I just don't have the time to waste in idiots like yourself.

Why did you not 'notice' or lie about the pensions being for black soldiers?

When the article says that they were for black servants?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Ever listened to the Maryland state song? Whoa!!!

Fascists believe in rewriting or reinterpreting history to fit their bigoted agendas.

So thats why you do it.

 

[Syriusly]

Then provide the records- or links to them.

As the very author you cited says:

I will issue the same challenge to Stauffer that I have to anyone who has made claims about the existence of black Confederate soldiers. Please find me one wartime account from a Confederate soldier, officer or politician who mentions that black men fought as soldiers in the army. I am not asking for fifty or one hundred, just one.

It is a fact that the South paid pensions to black veterans I don't have time to go dig it up so that you can just ignore it.

If you really want to know the Truth of the matter, then dig it up your own damned self. I really could not care less if you live under one more ideological nit wittery or not.

So you have nothing to support your claim.

LOL....not a shock there.

"African Americans who had served with the Confederate army were not included – except in Mississippi, which had included African Americans in the state’s pension program from its beginning in 1888. It was not until 1921 that another state extended the eligibility for pensions to African Americans who had served as servants with the Confederate army. Unfortunately, black southerners who applied for Confederate pensions in the 1920s were, for the most part, very old men. Consequently, the number of black pensioners was small compared to the large number of Confederate veterans in the states that had allowed for pensions decades earlier. For example, Mississippi, which was the only state to include African Americans from its program’s beginning in 1888, had 1,739 black pensioners; North Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1927 had 121; South Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1923, had 328; Tennessee, which first offered pensions in 1921, had 195; and Virginia, which first offered pensions in 1924, had 424 black pensioners. "

Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War Mississippi History Now

I have a question for you- are you a poor reader- or a liar?

The very article you cite says that the pensions were not for black soldiers:

African Americans who had served with the Confederate army were not included – except in Mississippi, which had included African Americans in the state’s pension program from its beginning in 1888. It was not until 1921 that another state extended the eligibility for pensions to African Americans who had served as servants with the Confederate army. Unfortunately, black southerners who applied for Confederate pensions in the 1920s were, for the most part, very old men. Consequently, the number of black pensioners was small compared to the large number of Confederate veterans in the states that had allowed for pensions decades earlier. For example, Mississippi, which was the only state to include African Americans from its program’s beginning in 1888, had 1,739 black pensioners; North Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1927 had 121; South Carolina, which first offered pensions in 1923, had 328; Tennessee, which first offered pensions in 1921, had 195; and Virginia, which first offered pensions in 1924, had 424 black pensioners.


Initially, Mississippi’s pensions for Confederate veterans were limited to soldiers or sailors and their former servants with a disability sustained during the war, such as the loss of a limb, that prevented them from engaging in manual labor, and to women who had been widowed during the war and had not remarried. In 1892, Mississippi expanded the eligibility for pensions to include veterans, their former servants, and unmarried widows “who are now resident in this State, and who are indigent and not able to earn support by their own labor.”


Pension applications from African Americans in Mississippi were forwarded to the state auditor’s office by pension boards in each county. These applications are now on file in the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, where they are intermingled with applications from white soldiers and widows, all of which are filed alphabetically by last name. Black pensioners can be identified by the special application form that servants were required to use. A review of the applications for Confederate pensions in Mississippi – about 36,000 – reveals 1,739 applications from African Americans.

Pension applications
Pension applications for African Americans were different from those used for soldiers or widows. Questions on the applications for servants asked for the applicant’s name, age, the name of the person he had served during the Civil War, and the dates of his service. Questions also asked the unit to which the applicant’s master had been assigned

The pension statutes in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee, for example, were intended primarily to reward the service of servants or cooks whose masters were assigned to units in the Confederate army. Despite state variations, an overall pattern of service among the black pensioners is clear. On average, 85 percent of the black pensioners served as servants or cooks with the Confederate army.

A central question about these men is whether some of them ever became soldiers. Unfortunately, applications submitted by black pensioners do not address this question. By filling out a servant’s application, these men acknowledged at the onset that they were noncombatants, not soldiers.

I am done with this subject as I just don't have the time to waste in idiots like yourself.

Not as if you contributed anything other than ignorant claims and insults anyways.

 

[JimBowie1958]

. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Yeah, what the fuck would the Vice-President of the Confederacy know about the Civil war and its causes. Clearly the revisionists know better.

Yeah because the slave owners point of view was the only one in the south and they did all the fighting.

The slave owners were the money people, so yeah, they did have a LOT of control.

But your attempt to say that the vice-president of the confederacy wouldn't know why the states seceded or why they went to war is hilarious.

And your supposition that there was only one reason why people fought in the Civil War is absurdly ridiculous.

 

[EverCurious]

You can't boil down a war to one reason, ever.

IF you want to boil it down to the "main" reason then at least be honest about what that reason was...

The South went to war over money - they didn't want to pay their workers.
The North went to war over duty - because Lincoln believed it was his duty as president to keep the states together.

BOTH sides were /wrong/, both sides did terrible things to each other, that is human nature in profit and war alike.

 

[sear]

" Lincoln believed it was his duty as president to keep the states together. " EC #147

He's probably right.
Art.2 Sect.3 requires the president to " take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
Art.1 Sect.8-15 requires congress to "suppress Insurrections".
But Art.2 Sect.2-1 designates the president as "commander in chief", so congress has the responsibility, but perhaps not the authority.

 

[EverCurious]

That might be the case, but he did so without approval from the other branches so he was also wrong.

 

[sear]

"That might be the case, but he did so without approval from the other branches so he was also wrong." EC

Here are a few lessons in pragmatism EC:

a) Any time a person is in a situation where they are both right, and wrong; it's better than a get out of jail free card. In that case the president may do as he wishes.

b) However grudging the primaries may have been, ultimately the U.S. federal government fought to preserve their maximum constituency.
They do this because it consolidates their power of the maximized footprint of their petit fiefdom.

c) There are two other branches.
The judicial branch need not accord its approval, nor weigh in on it in any manner. All our judiciary had to do was to not veto it. To my recollection, it did not.

The other branch is the legislature, controller of the purse strings.
I don't remember the details on that.
But as we are a 50 State union, I'm guessing things turned out well for the Yanks.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One other point worth making:

It is a Founding principle of the United States of America, as enshrined for perpetuity in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence that:

... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ... TJ / DOI

This if we claim on principle the South had no right to secede,
then on that same principle the United States of America rejects it's own right to break with the British royal crown under KG3.

"Can't have it both ways."

 

[EverCurious]

That's my point. I mean I'm kind of glad he did it, I'm not a fan of slavery nor of being neighbors with a semi-hostile country so in that way ya know it's good. In other ways, it pretty much cemented that the feds have power over states, which on many issues kind of doesn't give people freedom like "I" think it "should be" either. It's a bit of a win-win loss-loss for me. I don't get attached to either side though, I look at it as history. Things are what they are now...

 

[Skylar]

"That might be the case, but he did so without approval from the other branches so he was also wrong." EC

Here are a few lessons in pragmatism EC:

a) Any time a person is in a situation where they are both right, and wrong; it's better than a get out of jail free card. In that case the president may do as he wishes.

b) However grudging the primaries may have been, ultimately the U.S. federal government fought to preserve their maximum constituency.
They do this because it consolidates their power of the maximized footprint of their petit fiefdom.

c) There are two other branches.
The judicial branch need not accord its approval, nor weigh in on it in any manner. All our judiciary had to do was to not veto it. To my recollection, it did not.

The other branch is the legislature, controller of the purse strings.
I don't remember the details on that.
But as we are a 50 State union, I'm guessing things turned out well for the Yanks.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One other point worth making:

It is a Founding principle of the United States of America, as enshrined for perpetuity in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence that:

... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ... TJ / DOI

This if we claim on principle the South had no right to secede,
then on that same principle the United States of America rejects it's own right to break with the British royal crown under KG3.

"Can't have it both ways."

It depends on what you consider 'the people'. Madison considered the people the people of the United States. And the threshold of secession being amendment.

And Madison is an infinitely better source on the constitution than Jefferson ever was.

Also, the founders recognized a stark distinction between the right to revolution, and secession. The right to revolution is the right of the people to overthrow the government and put in a new one. This the founders fully recognized.

Secession is a different ball of wax. The Rebellion claimed the right to secede under the constitution itself. And there is no such provision, with the 10th amendment snuffing the idea even conceptually.

Madison waxed eloquently on this topic as well. Denouncing the 'right to secession' while recognizing the right to revolution.

The south didn't have the numbers among 'the people' to carry an amendment authorizing secession. So they fail Jefferson's standard. And the South didn't try to overthrow the government under the 'right of revolution', but tried to secede UNDER the constitution using the imaginary 'right to secede'.

Failing both standards. With Madison's being far more relevant than any flowery language from Jefferson. As Madison was one of the primary architects of the constitution. While Jefferson wasn't even in the country.

 

[2aguy]

Dennis Prager, the man who created these great short lessons on these important topics, interviewed the West Point historian this week. The man couldn't believe how many people actually viewed his video and said he didn't bring up anything that is controversial.....they both pointed out that if you look at the confederate states and their arguments for seceding from the union, they all say slavery.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

HAHAHA. You call that an "argument". Everything i said is true and you know it. Get your butt outta your head, you miserable white-hating racist.

Have you ever posted something that was actually true? I can't remember an instance.

The only one promoting the 'myth' that the North invaded the South to free the slaves is you.

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to protect their right to own human property.

And the big thing that the people who deny slavery was the issue......had the Southern democrats succeeded in leaving the union....slavery would have still existed. When the Republican North won the war, they actually did free all of the slaves.......that is a fact, you can't hide that and it can't be denied.....so yes, the war was about slavery for the south and the republicans in the north actually did free the slaves when the war was over.

 

[Skylar]

Dennis Prager, the man who created these great short lessons on these important topics, interviewed the West Point historian this week. The man couldn't believe how many people actually viewed his video and said he didn't bring up anything that is controversial.....they both pointed out that if you look at the confederate states and their arguments for seceding from the union, they all say slavery.....

This is completely obvious. The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union has essentially two parts.

The first is their constitutional justification for secession.

The second is why slavery is their reason for seceding. There is no other cause listed. Its just slavery.

The Vice President of the Confederacy in the Corner stone speech said straight out that slavery was the cause of the conflict. As clear as a bell. The secession declaration of Mississippi mentions slavery 27 times. With the declaration saying that rather than submit to abolition they were seceding.

It was about slavery. This isn't particular controversial. There's a handful of modern revisionists that want to make it about something else. And they have to straight up ignore the Confederacy to do it.

 

[bodecea]

The civil war was fought over whether states had the right to leave the union.

Nope. Over slavery.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

HAHAHA. You call that an "argument". Everything i said is true and you know it. Get your butt outta your head, you miserable white-hating racist.

Have you ever posted something that was actually true? I can't remember an instance.

The only one promoting the 'myth' that the North invaded the South to free the slaves is you.

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to protect their right to own human property.

And the big thing that the people who deny slavery was the issue......had the Southern democrats succeeded in leaving the union....slavery would have still existed.

Had the south stayed in the union, slavery would have still existed. Lincoln openly supported the Corwin Amendment at his inauguration which made slavery untouchable by congress or future amendment:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There was no push by Lincoln to abolish slavery in the south before the civil war. The Conflict was expanding slavery to future states. Read the entire Lincoln-Douglas debates. Not once was there the slightest mention of outlawing slavery in the south. But instead preventing slavery from existing in the new states.

When the Republican North won the war, they actually did free all of the slaves.......that is a fact, you can't hide that and it can't be denied.....so yes, the war was about slavery for the south and the republicans in the north actually did free the slaves when the war was over.

Once the war started the goal was preserving the union. Lincoln said that if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, he'd do it. It wasn't until nearly 3 years into the war that, as part of undermining the war effort in the south did the Emancipate slaves in the south.

The Emancipation of the slaves was caused by the war. Without it, it likely wouldn't have happened. And its quite possible that slavery would exist as an institution somewhere in this country to this day if the South hadn't overreacted.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

HAHAHA. You call that an "argument". Everything i said is true and you know it. Get your butt outta your head, you miserable white-hating racist.

Have you ever posted something that was actually true? I can't remember an instance.

The only one promoting the 'myth' that the North invaded the South to free the slaves is you.

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to protect their right to own human property.

And the big thing that the people who deny slavery was the issue......had the Southern democrats succeeded in leaving the union....slavery would have still existed. When the Republican North won the war, they actually did free all of the slaves.......that is a fact, you can't hide that and it can't be denied.....so yes, the war was about slavery for the south and the republicans in the north actually did free the slaves when the war was over.

Slavery was a sidebar issue and used as a wedge by Lincoln. The north had no desire to assume any freed slaves. That's why they were ruled by the SC to be 3/5 human and why they were relegated to segregated shit-holes by northerners when they migrated north.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

HAHAHA. You call that an "argument". Everything i said is true and you know it. Get your butt outta your head, you miserable white-hating racist.

Have you ever posted something that was actually true? I can't remember an instance.

The only one promoting the 'myth' that the North invaded the South to free the slaves is you.

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to protect their right to own human property.

And the big thing that the people who deny slavery was the issue......had the Southern democrats succeeded in leaving the union....slavery would have still existed. When the Republican North won the war, they actually did free all of the slaves.......that is a fact, you can't hide that and it can't be denied.....so yes, the war was about slavery for the south and the republicans in the north actually did free the slaves when the war was over.

Slavery was a sidebar issue and used as a wedge by Lincoln. The north had no desire to assume any freed slaves. That's why they were ruled by the SC to be 3/5 human and why they were relegated to segregated shit-holes by northerners when they migrated north.

The 3/5s happened during the Constitutional debate.....they wanted to limit the political power of the slave states in the new government......I know, your lefty professors and teachers never told you that....but the truth is the truth....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

HAHAHA. You call that an "argument". Everything i said is true and you know it. Get your butt outta your head, you miserable white-hating racist.

Have you ever posted something that was actually true? I can't remember an instance.

The only one promoting the 'myth' that the North invaded the South to free the slaves is you.

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to protect their right to own human property.

And the big thing that the people who deny slavery was the issue......had the Southern democrats succeeded in leaving the union....slavery would have still existed.

Had the south stayed in the union, slavery would have still existed. Lincoln openly supported the Corwin Amendment at his inauguration which made slavery untouchable by congress or future amendment:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There was no push by Lincoln to abolish slavery in the south before the civil war. The Conflict was expanding slavery to future states. Read the entire Lincoln-Douglas debates. Not once was there the slightest mention of outlawing slavery in the south. But instead preventing slavery from existing in the new states.

When the Republican North won the war, they actually did free all of the slaves.......that is a fact, you can't hide that and it can't be denied.....so yes, the war was about slavery for the south and the republicans in the north actually did free the slaves when the war was over.

Once the war started the goal was preserving the union. Lincoln said that if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, he'd do it. It wasn't until nearly 3 years into the war that, as part of undermining the war effort in the south did the Emancipate slaves in the south.

The Emancipation of the slaves was caused by the war. Without it, it likely wouldn't have happened. And its quite possible that slavery would exist as an institution somewhere in this country to this day if the South hadn't overreacted.

You are this clueless.......if the North didn't care about freaking slavery...why did they free the slaves when the war was over? You know they didn't have to do that if they didn't care about slavery...right? And if the north didn't care about slavery in the South the democrats would still own blacks as slaves today.........you are wrong.....the North freed the slaves after they won, when they didn't have to...they could just as easily have gone back and let the democrats keep their slaves...but the Republican party was the anti slavery party........they wanted to end slavery...Lincoln had no intention of going to war over slavery, but once it started he knew that slavery could not be allowed to exist after the war...and Fredrich Douglas agreed with Lincoln.....