Frank Galvin said:No one has a right to enslave another. No one has ever had that right. To the extent we allowed the practice it was an abomination.Redbrickbear said:It written that they are fighting the North to keep slaves?Mitch Blood Green said:Redbrickbear said:.Mitch Blood Green said:Redbrickbear said:Mitch Blood Green said:KaiBear said:Mitch Blood Green said:KaiBear said:Thee University said:
I say the only way to purge our country of the murderer Lincoln's legacy is to tear down all monuments, buildings and memorials to this thug of a man who lied to America for his own benefit and Northern shysters.
If it ever happens it will be the work of the descendants of slaves.
The same ones 300,000 Yankees died to set free.
No one died to set blacks free. The death was to keep them enslaved.
Setting free didn't require one shot to be fired. It could have been done with the stroke of a pen.
It shows the depravity of the southern slaveowner that he was willing to send your sons to death so that he could enslave and rape.
There was never a significant slave revolt anywhere in the south during the centuries that slavery existed.
It was the white president Lincoln who set the slaves free.
And over 300,000 white Yankees died fighting for their freedom. Thousands more were wounded or died of disease.
Even before the war it was white abolitionists who established smuggling operations to help slaves leave the south to freedom in the North and Canada. It was white abolitionists who pressured politicians into making the end of slavery the overriding political issue of an entire generation.
It was white abolitionists who emigrated into Kansas for the sole purpose of making sure the state would be admitted to the Union as a free state . It was whites who followed John Brown to the gallows after their failed attack at Harper's Ferry.
You're welcome .
Now earn your own job promotions based on MERIT.
The white northerners died because the white southerners attacked the north to keep people enslaved.
You still seem to think the North fought that war to free slaves.
Yet as the South voted to leave…the North was voting to sink the right to own slaves deeper into the Constitution.
[In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention.]
[Even though sectional conflicts over slavery had been a major cause of the war, ending slavery was not a goal of the war.]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation#:~:text=Initially%2C%20the%20Civil%20War%20between,a%20goal%20of%20the%20war.
No. The South fought the war to preserve slavery. The North fought the war to ok preserve the union.
I agree that the North was fighting to preserve the Union (and not to free slaves)
I am interested in why you think the South was fighting a war to preserve slavery when neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party in the North had called for an end to slavery.
In 1861 there had not been one law ever proposed in Congress to out law slavery.
I'm not even aware of one major Republican newspaper who has ever advocated such a thing
Because it's written in every southern state article of secession.
Or that they are simply stating that their society is a slave holding one and its a protected right...which was certainly true
Well I certainly do not disagree with the morality of that statement.
But legally you are wrong...until the passage of the 13th amendment the U.S. Constitution recognized the right to own slaves.
"And so much of it [slavery] remains after the war is over, it will remain precisely in the same condition that it was before the war and must be let to the exclusive control of the States where it may exist." Letter from Lincoln to Senator Browning affirming that Congress possessed no power over slavery in the States, The Diary of Orville Browning (2 vols; Springfield: Illinois State Historical library)
"Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not issued from a humane standpoint. Lincoln hoped it would incite the Negroes to rise against the women and children. His Emancipation Proclamation was intended only as a punishment for the seceding states. It was with no thought of... freeing the slaves of more than 300,000 slaveholders then in the Northern Army and included slaveholder Ulysses S. Grant and his wife." - Rhodes, "History of the United States," Vol. IV., page 344
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)