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

[g5000]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

No action by Lincoln, no war. Period.

No action by FDR, no war. Period.

See how stupid you sound?

Well it's largely true that if FDR hadn't purposely provoked Japan they probably wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, but it's not logical to say that Abraham Lincoln and FDR and the Civil War and WWII are exactly the same.

They aren't the same in that the rebels did far more harm to the US than the Japs did.

You act as if the war wasn't about slavery because Lincoln was just supposed to let the slave states destroy the country!

The war was about slavery. Period.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

More than 150 years later, the losers still won't take responsibility for the war. As if the US was supposed to just let them secede over slavery.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Why shouldn't they have been allowed to secede? Personally, I wish they had been allowed so I wouldn't have to deal with horrible people like George W. Bush today.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

.. Lincoln .. was not interested in ending slavery as he explicitly stated.

What you said..

We get it, no one cared about the slaves back then...

What I said..

Now we all know that the Confederates didn't give a damn about slaves

We know Lincoln didn't care about the slaves -- as you so passionately proclaimed

So therefore, no one gave a **** about the slaves

We get it, you just make up nonsense.

Yea, which is what slavery apologists usually say when you quote their own words back to them ..Sad.

 

[TNHarley]

More than 150 years later, the losers still won't take responsibility for the war. As if the US was supposed to just let them secede over slavery.

The war was about slavery. Period.

So lincoln would have let them secede over other things, or are you talking bullshit again?

 

[gipper]

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

I am not Con, but I know damn well Lincoln’s war of Northern Aggression was NOT about slavery. At least from Dishonest Abe’s perspective, and he started the war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

No action by Lincoln, no war. Period.

No action by FDR, no war. Period.

See how stupid you sound?

Well it's largely true that if FDR hadn't purposely provoked Japan they probably wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, but it's not logical to say that Abraham Lincoln and FDR and the Civil War and WWII are exactly the same.

They aren't the same in that the rebels did far more harm to the US than the Japs did.

You act as if the war wasn't about slavery because Lincoln was just supposed to let the slave states destroy the country!

The war was about slavery. Period.

The United States wasn't destroyed by secession, it existed just fine. I'd say probably better, frankly. William Lloyd Garrison argued that the north should secede from the Union to get away from the slave states and I think he was right.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

.. Lincoln .. was not interested in ending slavery as he explicitly stated.

What you said..

We get it, no one cared about the slaves back then...

What I said..

Now we all know that the Confederates didn't give a damn about slaves

We know Lincoln didn't care about the slaves -- as you so passionately proclaimed

So therefore, no one gave a **** about the slaves

We get it, you just make up nonsense.

Yea, which is what slavery apologists usually say when you quote their own words back to them ..Sad.

So Abraham Lincoln constitutes everyone? You're not using my own words, genius.

 

[rightwinger]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Game. Set. Match.

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

 

[g5000]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

No action by Lincoln, no war. Period.

Ft Sumter

Correct. If Lincoln had attempted diplomacy over Fort Sumter instead of provoking the south there probably would not have been a war.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

The slave states were leaving, period. Because of slavery. Negotiations were over. There was nothing Lincoln could have done to get them to come back other than by force.

It was because Lincoln was portrayed as an abolitionist by Southern propagandists which prompted the slave states to secede when he was elected.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Game. Set. Match.

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

 

[rightwinger]

More than 150 years later, the losers still won't take responsibility for the war. As if the US was supposed to just let them secede over slavery.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Why shouldn't they have been allowed to secede? Personally, I wish they had been allowed so I wouldn't have to deal with horrible people like George W. Bush today.

There are no provisions in the Constitution for secession. If the founders intended for states to come and go as they please, they would have established a procedure to do so.
Instead, they had provisions for joining the union and nothing about leaving it

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

No action by Lincoln, no war. Period.

Ft Sumter

Correct. If Lincoln had attempted diplomacy over Fort Sumter instead of provoking the south there probably would not have been a war.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

The slave states were leaving, period. Because of slavery. Negotiations were over. There was nothing Lincoln could have done to get them to come back other than by force.

It was because Lincoln was portrayed as an abolitionist by Southern propagandists which prompted the slave states to secede when he was elected.

I didn't say he could get them to come back diplomatically. He also didn't need to force them back into the Union at all. Let them go, which prior to Fort Sumter was the majority position of people in the north.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You act as if the war wasn't about slavery because Lincoln was just supposed to let the slave states destroy the country!

The defense rests, your honor.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

More than 150 years later, the losers still won't take responsibility for the war. As if the US was supposed to just let them secede over slavery.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Why shouldn't they have been allowed to secede? Personally, I wish they had been allowed so I wouldn't have to deal with horrible people like George W. Bush today.

There are no provisions in the Constitution for secession. If the founders intended for states to come and go as they please, they would have established a procedure to do so.
Instead, they had provisions for joining the union and nothing about leaving it

That's not how the Constitution works. Anything not explicitly forbidden to the States remains a power of the States per the 10th Amendment. The States are not forbidden in the Constitution from seceding, therefore they have the power to do so under the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Game. Set. Match.

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

 

[Claudette]

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.

Sigh.

Actually Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery- but thought that advocating abolition was not the answer.

The Secession was about slavery. And the war started when South Carolina attacked U.S. Army troops to protect secession.

So the Confederacy did go to war to protect slavery- even if the Union did not go to war to end slavery.

For the slave owners it may have been but for those who didn't it had to be something else. My Great, Great grandfather fought with the 57st Alabama Infantry Regiment and he did not own slaves.

He fought to maintain the institution of slavery

I don't know his reasons and he was my ancestor how the **** can you have a clue ?

Everyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery. The sole purpose of creating a slave state (40 percent slave)

Nobody knows what the southerners were thinking.

Less then 1% of Southerners owned Slaves. In fact many slave owners were black.

Of course slavery was part of the Civil War but States Rights was a bigger part of it.

 

[Polishprince]

The North started the Civil War, not the South. And the North had slavery too, albeit, not as much, but they still had it.

No it wasn't about Slavery, the War of Northern Aggression was Lincoln trying and succeeding in keeping the Union together.

Much like President Putin is doing over in the Soviet Union, working to try and bring the seceding SSR's back into the union under Russian hegemony

 

[rightwinger]

More than 150 years later, the losers still won't take responsibility for the war. As if the US was supposed to just let them secede over slavery.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Why shouldn't they have been allowed to secede? Personally, I wish they had been allowed so I wouldn't have to deal with horrible people like George W. Bush today.

There are no provisions in the Constitution for secession. If the founders intended for states to come and go as they please, they would have established a procedure to do so.
Instead, they had provisions for joining the union and nothing about leaving it

That's not how the Constitution works. Anything not explicitly forbidden to the States remains a power of the States per the 10th Amendment. The States are not forbidden in the Constitution from seceding, therefore they have the power to do so under the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution allows secession.
The Supreme Court affirmed it

 

[Polishprince]

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

Quite a leap here, the Union of South Africa's history is a lot different than that of the United States. I guess its "possible" that a Mandela would have risen out of the America, but probably not.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, the cause of the war was Lincoln not sitting by and letting the slave states destroy the Union.

Not slavery.