Was the Civil War fought over slavery?

[Skylar]

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?

I repeat, for the morons and willfully ignorant, the North had no interest in freeing the slaves in the south before the civil war. Lincoln never once advocated or campaigned on the issue. And in fact Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address, an amendment that would have made slavery untouchable by congress or any other amendent in perpetuity.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

President Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Are we on the same page?

It was only AFTER the war had started and had gone on for nearly 3 years that Emancipation was brought to the table. And this as a measure to sap the South's war effort. The war caused Emancipation. Without the war, there would have been the Corwin Amendment and the protection of slavery.

Do you get it now? Do you even disagree with anything I've said. As you refuse to address any of it specifically.

The North didn't fight the war to free slaves. The war was fought to preserve the union.

"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 this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

President Lincoln

A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN. - Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object. - NYTimes.com

The South fought to defend slavery. And the North fought to preserve the union.

And the stupid part? The South was defending slavery from their own fear. They utterly overreacted.

 

[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. 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.

Lincoln's opposition to slavery before the civil war consisted of attempting to keep it out of the new states and preserving the Clay Compromise.

The wedge issues were created by hysteric secessionists in the south that insisted that if Lincoln were elected he's force interracial marriage. Not the legalization of it, the complusion of it. The south lost their motherfucking minds over Lincoln.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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....

You're missing the overarching point. Neither side had any real concern about the morality of slavery. It was all politics. The feel-good story was about the morality of the union making abolition a central focus.

 

[sear]

"And the threshold of secession being amendment." Sl

So the South could have seceded if they'd followed protocol, instead of Ft. Sumter?
Hmmm.

"And Madison is an infinitely better source on the constitution than Jefferson ever was." Sl #152

Right. TJ was the DOI.
Madison's work was the body of the Constitution.

I've done some additional reading on it. George Will asserted:
"George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights ... said by the militia we mean the whole People." George Will

 

[Skylar]

"And the threshold of secession being amendment." Sl

So the South could have seceded if they'd followed protocol, instead of Ft. Sumter?

If the South could have gotten the 3/4 of other States they needed, sure. But they couldn't. And they knew they couldn't. So they went the Sumter route.

South Carolina had had a hard on for secession since Madison's day. When Madison rejected the entire idea of secession, it was in response to South Carolina's saber rattling on the topic.

"And Madison is an infinitely better source on the constitution than Jefferson ever was." Sl #152

Right. TJ was the DOI.
Madison's work was the body of the Constitution.

I've done some additional reading on it. George Will asserted:
"George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights ... said by the militia we mean the whole People." George Will

If you're gonna quote the Bill of Rights as it relates to secession, secession breaks on the 10th amendment. As territorial jurisdiction over both the territory of the States and federal enclaves is an explicitly delegated power of the federal government. And one that a State unilaterally lacks the authority to violate.

The States (plural) can.....via amendment. But the South didn't have that. They claimed the right of secession unilaterally, one State at a time. And attempted to strip the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

Something they never had the power to do. Madison called it 'concurrent government'. The Supreme Court, concurrent jurisdiction. And no territorial decision can be made without the agreement of both sovereigns: the State and Federal government.

When Georgia spun off Mississippi and Alabama, its not something that it did unilaterally. Nor was it something that the Federal government could do without the consent of Georgia. Both had to agree before any territorial decisions could be made. So it was with the territory of any of the States.

The United States consists of the States and territories. And its jurisdiction extends to all the territory within them.

 

[sear]

Sl #165

I like your style Sl.

"The United States consists of the States and territories." Sl

Surely, in the 3rd Millennium. Puerto Rico is fairly easy to figure out. I haven't quite figured Guam out. The American Heritage® Dictionary calls Guam an "unincorporated territory". Seems oxymoronic to me.

 

[Skylar]

Sl #165

I like your style Sl.

"The United States consists of the States and territories." Sl

Surely, in the 3rd Millennium. Puerto Rico is fairly easy to figure out. I haven't quite figured Guam out. The American Heritage® Dictionary calls Guam an "unincorporated territory". Seems oxymoronic to me.

We've chatted before on a different board under a different handle. We got along then too.

As far as the territories are concerned.....its a fucked up patchwork of old racism, administrative nuance and institutional inertia. Puerto Rico for example is the only place in the US where you can be a 'naturalized US citizen at birth'.

Until I found that little nugget of US law, I thought the terms oxymorons. But apparently the oxymoron was out moroned by congress.