Most Conservatives Still Believe The Civil War Wasn't Over Slavery

[rightwinger]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

The Civil War was over a state's right to secede.

The reason they seceded was slavery. or the fear U.S. expansion would put slave states in the minority.

But, make no mistake. The war was about seceding. Read Lincoln's inaugural address.

The issue was slavery

They never would have seceded if not for trying to preserve slavery forever

 

[cnm]

The Civil War was over a state's right to secede.

No, it was over Federal property.

 

[rightwinger]

If not for slavery

The southern states would have never seceded

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Why would anyone care about the Confederate cause? .

Ask most of the conservatives who get in their feels when this question is asked

I was born in the north in the 20th century and I have no romantic illusions about the Confederacy, but neither do I have any about Lincoln or the Union. You mocked me when I tried to narrow down your yes or no question so that I could answer it in an intelligent manner. Was the Civil War itself over slavery? No, and Lincoln admitted as much himself. Was southern secession primarily about slavery? Well, yes, for the states of the deep south it certainly was. Georgia, Mississippi, and so on. Virginia? No.

So as long as Lincoln allowed the states to have their states rights circle jerk -- with the absence of slavery -- then there wouldn't have been a war?

Because the Missouri Compromise didn't prevent it -- because states wanted their slaves.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why would anyone care about the Confederate cause? I was born in the north in the 20th century and I have no romantic illusions about the Confederacy, but neither do I have any about Lincoln or the Union. You mocked me when I tried to narrow down your yes or no question so that I could answer it in an intelligent manner. Was the Civil War itself over slavery? No, and Lincoln admitted as much himself. Was southern secession primarily about slavery? Well, yes, for the states of the deep south it certainly was. Georgia, Mississippi, and so on. Virginia? No

Secession was over slavery. The war was over secession.

 

[Doc1]

Po chile, so many white men....so little time. Put your big boy pants on and grow up....oh wait, that means you'd actually have to take responsibility for yourself. Whatever would you do if you couldn't blame whitey for everything.

When someone asks you what was the Spanish American war over -- do you struggle to answer the question??

Why so much deflection when it comes to the Civil War?

Why do conservatives take this question so personal?

LOL, do try and pay attention, that was to our resident whitey hater. As to your post, if you don't a source you are simply wanting "debate" your own opinion. Opinions are subjective and therefore non debatable. Does that help?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Jim Crow agrees with you.

That's odd considering there was no real "Jim Crow" ...
And even with that "Jim Crow" was nothing more than a mock casket carried by the Detroit NAACP Chapter in 1944 ...

.​

.​

Yea them there Jim Crow laws never existed -- the coloreds had it too good if you ask me!!
*Spits out tobacco*

White Only: Jim Crow in America - Separate Is Not Equal

Strawman Chewing on Straw

Another revelation that race treason is based on class snobbery and ridiculing people who work out in the sun.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The logic of pointing to a single speech as if it alone is all the proof necessary to prove an argument never ceases to astound.

Lincoln was commander-in-chief. He was the guy responsible for prosecuting the war on the south. If not his speech, what other evidence is there?

The War was over independence of states and their freedom to separate from the union.

Well the post I was referring to was not quoting a speech of Lincoln's, was it? But even just looking at a single Lincoln speech in a vacuum tells us nothing. What were his actions, and policies throughout his political career?

 

[Doc1]

You po black folks are so put upon. Grow up chile.

Feeling mentally abused huh?

I get it.

Must be tough being white...in America...in 2018.

I can't imagine.

I'm sure things will get better for you...in time.

Po chile, so many white men....so little time. Put your big boy pants on and grow up....oh wait, that means you'd actually have to take responsibility for yourself. Whatever would you do if you couldn't blame whitey for everything.

Conservative whites to be precise. Misinformed conservative chumps to be precise. Conservative fools today and conservative fools in 1861, fighting for the greedy idiot conservative 1% again LOL..

Oh look, franco is trolling again. How cute.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh. You should have said.

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com​

Velveeta Shells and Cheese has a way better ring to it ...
But no doubt you will insist on bringing your dirty laundry with you when you come ...

.​

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The Civil War was over a state's right to secede.

No, it was over Federal property.

Why did the Missouri Compromise fail?

 

[Imissbush]

The logic of pointing to a single speech as if it alone is all the proof necessary to prove an argument never ceases to astound.

Lincoln was commander-in-chief. He was the guy responsible for prosecuting the war on the south. If not his speech, what other evidence is there?

The War was over independence of states and their freedom to separate from the union.

Yes, and they lost. They failed. Losers don't write the history for a reason

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why would anyone care about the Confederate cause? .

Ask most of the conservatives who get in their feels when this question is asked

I was born in the north in the 20th century and I have no romantic illusions about the Confederacy, but neither do I have any about Lincoln or the Union. You mocked me when I tried to narrow down your yes or no question so that I could answer it in an intelligent manner. Was the Civil War itself over slavery? No, and Lincoln admitted as much himself. Was southern secession primarily about slavery? Well, yes, for the states of the deep south it certainly was. Georgia, Mississippi, and so on. Virginia? No.

So as long as Lincoln allowed the states to have their states rights circle jerk -- with the absence of slavery -- then there wouldn't have been a war?

Because the Missouri Compromise didn't prevent it -- because states wanted their slaves.

I don't know what you're saying here. Are you asking me if Lincoln had let the southern states secede, but somehow forced them to give up slavery would there have been a war?

 

[cnm]

Secession was over slavery. The war was over secession.

Lincoln didn't go to war when states seceded.

 

[Imissbush]

Why would anyone care about the Confederate cause? I was born in the north in the 20th century and I have no romantic illusions about the Confederacy, but neither do I have any about Lincoln or the Union. You mocked me when I tried to narrow down your yes or no question so that I could answer it in an intelligent manner. Was the Civil War itself over slavery? No, and Lincoln admitted as much himself. Was southern secession primarily about slavery? Well, yes, for the states of the deep south it certainly was. Georgia, Mississippi, and so on. Virginia? No

Secession was over slavery. The war was over secession.

That makes no sense at all

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why would anyone care about the Confederate cause? I was born in the north in the 20th century and I have no romantic illusions about the Confederacy, but neither do I have any about Lincoln or the Union. You mocked me when I tried to narrow down your yes or no question so that I could answer it in an intelligent manner. Was the Civil War itself over slavery? No, and Lincoln admitted as much himself. Was southern secession primarily about slavery? Well, yes, for the states of the deep south it certainly was. Georgia, Mississippi, and so on. Virginia? No

Secession was over slavery. The war was over secession.

Too simplistic: Secession of the deep south was over slavery, but was not the reason for states like Virginia to secede.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If not for slavery

The southern states would have never seceded

But, if not for secession, the war would have never happened.

Had they not seceded, would there have been a war?

Not according to Lincoln in his inaugural address.

Had they seceded over another disputed, would there have been a war? Yes.

Slavery just has that sexy justice appeal to it that allows the moronic masses to cling to when questions about the abuse of power are raised.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The civil war was about "keeping the Nation together" and exercising executive power that didnt exist.
Secession was about slavery.
Lincoln didnt give a shit about the slaves, he just didnt want it to SPREAD. He wanted to keep it where it was.

Secession was about the north financially raping the south and using slavery as a convenient smokescreen.

 

[Doc1]

Bif wants to preach, not debate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Secession was over slavery. The war was over secession.

Lincoln didn't go to war when states seceded.

Lincoln wasn't president when the first wave of states seceded.