Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

You keep saying slavery was protected by the Constitution, and it was. But the slaveholding states believed that non-slaveholding states were: (1) not abiding by the Constitution and (2) would eventually be powerful enough to amend the Constitution or otherwise overrule its protections. They left because of their belief that if they did not leave, they would eventually lose the right to own and abuse other human beings. They said as much repeatedly.

That was the southern motivation. It was ignoble in the extreme, despite all the lost-cause writers' protests to the contrary.

That is not me talking, that is the Vice-Presidency of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

This is your party and you don't even know it.

That's sad

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

You keep saying slavery was protected by the Constitution, and it was. But the slaveholding states believed that non-slaveholding states were: (1) not abiding by the Constitution and (2) would eventually be powerful enough to amend the Constitution or otherwise overrule its protections. They left because of their belief that if they did not leave, they would eventually lose the right to own and abuse other human beings. They said as much repeatedly.

That was the southern motivation. It was ignoble in the extreme, despite all the lost-cause writers' protests to the contrary.

That is not me talking, that is the Vice-Presidency of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

---

"If we ain't fighting to keep our slaves, then what in the hell are we fighting for."

Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

And for those who continue to say the south wasn't fighting about slavery, you might want to look into Maj. Gen Parick Cleburne's proposal late in the war to keep secessionist hopes alive ... and just how well it went over.

fubar said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

You keep saying slavery was protected by the Constitution, and it was. But the slaveholding states believed that non-slaveholding states were: (1) not abiding by the Constitution and (2) would eventually be powerful enough to amend the Constitution or otherwise overrule its protections. They left because of their belief that if they did not leave, they would eventually lose the right to own and abuse other human beings. They said as much repeatedly.

That was the southern motivation. It was ignoble in the extreme, despite all the lost-cause writers' protests to the contrary.

That is not me talking, that is the Vice-Presidency of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

---

"If we ain't fighting to keep our slaves, then what in the hell are we fighting for."

Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

And for those who continue to say the south wasn't fighting about slavery, you might want to look into Maj. Gen Parick Cleburne's proposal late in the war to keep secessionist hopes alive ... and just how well it went over.

---

1. That Forrest quote is not real.... [historically unverified and likely apocryphal, No letters, speeches, diaries, or newspaper articles from the 1860s contain the exact phrase, "If we ain't fightin' to keep slavery, then what the hell are we fightin' for?"]

The real quote is this:

[Forrest is quoted in a postwar interview with the Cincinnati Commercial, August 28, 1868, as saying,
"When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the Army with me, and forty-five of them were surrendered with me. I told these boys that this war was about slavery, and if we lose, you will be made free. If we whip the fight and you stay with me you will be made free. Either way, you will be freed. These boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live."]

https://historynet.com/nathan-bedford-forrest/


2. Gen. Cleburne was smart....and it was actually being considered and moving forward...though at a slow pace.

Gen. Lee was for it as well:

[We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effects of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed, it seems to me advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby secure all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro troops under regulations similar in principle to those above indicated would, in my opinion, greatly increase our military strength, and enable us to relieve our population to some extent. I think we could dispense with our reserve forces except in cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the hopes which our enemies base upon our exhaustion, deprive them in a great measure of the aid they now derive from black troops, and thus throw the burden of the war upon their own people. In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers.
I can only say, in conclusion, that whatever measures are to be adopted should be adopted at once. Every days delay increases the difficulty. Much time will be required to organize and discipline the men, and action may be deferred until it is too late.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. Lee, General] -letter January 1865 between Andrew Hunter, a member of the Senate of Virginia, and Robert E. Lee, then commanding the Army of Northern Virginia

[Near 21st and Main Street in Richmond, Virginia, the first legally authorized African American Confederate soldiers were assembled and trained in the final weeks of the Civil War. Legislation passed by the Confederate congress on March 13, 1865, allowed for enslaved African Americans to be mustered and equipped on an experimental basis as combat soldiers.... even at this late date in the war the legislature debated fiercely and was not prepared to authorize a full-sized regiment of 1000 armed, Black men. Instead, they authorized an experiment in the form of two companies of enslaved men (companies being typically composed of 50-100). Major Thomas Turner, the former commandant of Libby Prison, and Major Joseph Pegram were selected to recruit, train, and command these two companies. The Washington D.C. Evening Star newspaper carried the story later in the month that "a deserter from the rebel army… reports that rebel authorities have already placed a number of negro troops in the entrenchments surrounding Richmond]

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

---

Lets not pretend that narrative is not out there....and if you don't know that.... then you are no educated enough on the topic to be in this discussion.

Its not just out there...its advancing with some speed...despite push back from some institutional historians

[Authors like Gerald Horne in "The Counterrevolution of 1776" argue that colonial elites feared British imperial policies-such as the 1772 Somerset court ruling or rising slave resistance-might threaten the institution of bondage, making preservation of slavery a key motive for revolt]

[The lead author of the 1619 Project is journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who asserted in an essay that the American Revolution was fought partly to protect slavery from a rising British abolition movement]

[Historians note that while the 1772 Somerset v. Stewart decision only applied to England and Wales, it heightened fears among some Southern planters. Later, Lord Dunmore's 1775 Proclamation offering freedom to enslaved people who joined the British army pushed hesitant Southern slaveholders closer to the Patriot cause]

https://nyupress.org/blog/2025/07/04/was-the-revolutionary-war-a-conservative-revolt-in-favor-of-slavery-an-interview-with-gerald-horne-author-of-counter-revolution-of-1776/

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump?

---

It would make sense. Apparently they're both so full of s*** that people are jumping overboard in droves.

fubar said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

You keep saying slavery was protected by the Constitution, and it was. But the slaveholding states believed that non-slaveholding states were: (1) not abiding by the Constitution and (2) would eventually be powerful enough to amend the Constitution or otherwise overrule its protections. They left because of their belief that if they did not leave, they would eventually lose the right to own and abuse other human beings. They said as much repeatedly.

That was the southern motivation. It was ignoble in the extreme, despite all the lost-cause writers' protests to the contrary.

That is not me talking, that is the Vice-Presidency of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

---

"If we ain't fighting to keep our slaves, then what in the hell are we fighting for."

Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

And for those who continue to say the south wasn't fighting about slavery, you might want to look into Maj. Gen Parick Cleburne's proposal late in the war to keep secessionist hopes alive ... and just how well it went over.

---

I don't believe that is an actual quote from Forrest. If so, please provide the backup.

From what I have read, this is a quote he gave after the war, and an interview: "When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-five of them were surrendered with me. I said to them at the start: 'This fight is against slavery; if we lose it, you will be made free; if we whip in the fight, and if you stay with me and be good boys, I will set you free. In either case you will be free. Those boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live."

Either way, he viewed it as a fight over slavery, but there have been articles written about him that paint an entirely different picture of the man than what is commonly believed.

Chuckroast said:

---

fubar said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

You keep saying slavery was protected by the Constitution, and it was. But the slaveholding states believed that non-slaveholding states were: (1) not abiding by the Constitution and (2) would eventually be powerful enough to amend the Constitution or otherwise overrule its protections. They left because of their belief that if they did not leave, they would eventually lose the right to own and abuse other human beings. They said as much repeatedly.

That was the southern motivation. It was ignoble in the extreme, despite all the lost-cause writers' protests to the contrary.

That is not me talking, that is the Vice-Presidency of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

---

"If we ain't fighting to keep our slaves, then what in the hell are we fighting for."

Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

And for those who continue to say the south wasn't fighting about slavery, you might want to look into Maj. Gen Parick Cleburne's proposal late in the war to keep secessionist hopes alive ... and just how well it went over.

---

I don't believe that is an actual quote from Forrest. If so, please provide the backup.

From what I have read, this is a quote he gave after the war, and an interview: "When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-five of them were surrendered with me. I said to them at the start: 'This fight is against slavery; if we lose it, you will be made free; if we whip in the fight, and if you stay with me and be good boys, I will set you free. In either case you will be free. Those boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live."

Either way, he viewed it as a fight over slavery, but there have been articles written about him that paint an entirely different picture of the man than what is commonly believed.

---

Oops looks like somebody beat me to it

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

I think it is because slavery was tied so close to the economic system that they didnt see ot as moral issue, but an economic one. North saw ot as moral issue. 6 of one...

More revisionist history from the liberal nut jobs like flunaticbear

Dude lives with the fairies

Chuckroast said:

---

fubar said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

You keep saying slavery was protected by the Constitution, and it was. But the slaveholding states believed that non-slaveholding states were: (1) not abiding by the Constitution and (2) would eventually be powerful enough to amend the Constitution or otherwise overrule its protections. They left because of their belief that if they did not leave, they would eventually lose the right to own and abuse other human beings. They said as much repeatedly.

That was the southern motivation. It was ignoble in the extreme, despite all the lost-cause writers' protests to the contrary.

That is not me talking, that is the Vice-Presidency of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

---

"If we ain't fighting to keep our slaves, then what in the hell are we fighting for."

Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

And for those who continue to say the south wasn't fighting about slavery, you might want to look into Maj. Gen Parick Cleburne's proposal late in the war to keep secessionist hopes alive ... and just how well it went over.

---

I don't believe that is an actual quote from Forrest. If so, please provide the backup.

---

Correct....Its a changed quote from the real quote he gave an Ohio paper...

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery.

---

Because the war itself was not about slavery....purely truthful statement.

The North was happy to leave slavery alone and protected by the Constitution. Offered many times to make already established protections even stronger. In fact offered that all the way to just about the end of the war.

The war was over Union vs illegal Disunion....Independence vs illegal Coercion

Had secession taken place (but slavery never existed) then the war would have still taken place just as it did. The North committed to keeping the other States in the Union. The seceding States committed to their deeply held belief that it was a fundamental right to Independence and no Federal government had the right to hold them via force.

The North was afraid (very understandably) that allowing States to leave unilaterally would eventually mean the rest of the USA would break up over regional lines (Midwest vs New England, ect.), that a new Southern Union on the borders would be an ally of England and put them between British area to their north and a new British ally to their south, that the Mississippi river would be closed to them (the most important navigable river system on earth and from which much of the Midwest agriculture output flowed), that they would lose vast tax revenue, that it would weaken the USA forever.

The South (especially the rank and file fighting men of the south) were fighting for what they consider to be war of independence and a deep feeling that the States are the final sovereign authority and the Federal gov. a creation of the States and not a government granted the right to prevent them from Independence.

"What we of the North do not understand is that the South-meaning thereby the brains of the South- instead of regarding the states rights doctrine as a mere theory...held it as a sacred inheritance for which they were ready to die"-James Redpath (Abolitionist)

"Whether the Southern people were justified in seceding has nothing to do with the fact or the right of secession. If a community is dissatisfied, from any cause or from none...they have the right-the inalienable right-to change them"-James Redpath

PS

Now if you want to make the argument that secession itself was solely slavery driven you are on stronger ground...at least for the deep south slave States who were of course highly committed to slavery a economic an social system (still it was not the only reason but certainly the precipitating reason that Lincoln's election was the point it came to a crisis point)

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery.

---

Because the war itself was not about slavery....purely truthful statement.

The North was happy to leave slavery alone and protected by the Constitution. Offered many times to make already established protections even stronger. In fact offered that all the way to just about the end of the war.

The war was over Union vs illegal Disunion....Independence vs illegal Coercion

Had secession taken place (but slavery never existed) then the war would have still taken place just as it did. The North committed to keeping the other States in the Union. The seceding States committed to their deeply held belief that it was a fundamental right to Independence and no Federal government had the right to hold them via force.

The North was afraid (very understandably) that allowing States to leave unilaterally would eventually mean the rest of the USA would break up over regional lines (Midwest vs New England, ect.), that a new Southern Union on the borders would be an ally of England and put them between British area to their north and a new British ally to their south, that the Mississippi river would be closed to them (the most important navigable river system on earth and from which much of the Midwest agriculture output flowed), that they would lose vast tax revenue, that it would weaken the USA forever.

The South (especially the rank and file fighting men of the south) were fighting for what they consider to be war of independence and a deep feeling that the States are the final sovereign authority and the Federal gov. a creation of the States and not a government granted the right to prevent them from Independence.

"What we of the North do not understand is that the South-meaning thereby the brains of the South- instead of regarding the states rights doctrine as a mere theory...held it as a sacred inheritance for which they were ready to die"-James Redpath (Abolitionist)

"Whether the Southern people were justified in seceding has nothing to do with the fact or the right of secession. If a community is dissatisfied, from any cause or from none...they have the right-the inalienable right-to change them"-James Redpath

PS

Now if you want to make the argument that secession itself was solely slavery driven you are on stronger ground...at least for the deep south slave States who were of course highly committed to slavery a economic an social system (still it was not the only reason but certainly the precipitating reason that Lincoln's election was the point it came to a crisis point)

---

The civil war was about slavery.

That is why it appears multiple times in their secession documents and Constitution.

To claim it was not a cause of the civil war is revisionist history.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

I have. With more degrees than you. IN history.

Slavery was an issue of the civil war.

To claim it was not is stupid.

Now care to debate or just make personal attacks?

How does a country invade itself? IS the US still invading itself with military bases around the US?

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/01/22/primary-sources-slavery-as-the-cause-of-the-civil-war/

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

I have. With more degrees than you. IN history.

Slavery was an issue of the civil war.

To claim it was not is stupid.

Now care to debate or just make personal attacks?

How does a country invade itself? IS the US still invading itself with military bases around the US?

---

If you knew anything about history you would not ask
Questions than any educated person would know. It's nott personal it's just basic education. Sorry if you're butthurt. I guess I expect too much - just a basic understanding of things
And the ability to articulate it.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

I have. With more degrees than you. IN history.

Slavery was an issue of the civil war.

To claim it was not is stupid.

Now care to debate or just make personal attacks?

How does a country invade itself? IS the US still invading itself with military bases around the US?

---

If you knew anything about history you would not ask
Questions than any educated person would know. It's nott personal it's just basic education. Sorry if you're butthurt. I guess I expect too much - just a basic understanding of things
And the ability to articulate it.

---

LOL.

Sorry you don't understand basic English.

Sorry you can't answer a basic question.

I will make sure from now on to use small words for your small brain.

I have studied the Civil War extensively. To claim the war had nothing to do with slavery is wrong and stupid. And thus I never understand why so many argue it has nothing to do with slavery.

Notice no where that I made any sort of claim about it being the only cause, main cause of any sort of ranking in terms of the causes, just that it was connected to the war. That is what I am saying. Hopefully your two brain cells can understand that now instead of resorting to the tactics of small minded people making personal attacks.

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

How does a country invade itself? IS the US still invading itself with military bases around the US?

---

If a State has withdraw from the Union and established a new independent nation....then its not part of that former country anymore.

"Even after the southern States had acted upon the old-time theory & seceded, the North for a moment was not sure that they had acted beyond their right. It required the terrible exercise of prolonged war to impart to the national idea diffused vitality & authentic power." -Wilson

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state."-William Rawle (PA, 1829) "A Constitutional View of the US" Former West Point Textbook

"some of the original Northern members of the Union under the Constitution had regarded themselves as entitled at any time to take back powers that they had delegated to the general government. The resolutions of the Hartford Convention are directly to this point."-Prof Channing

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

Slavery was an issue of the civil war.

---

An issue that led to secession....not the issue of the war itself.

"But the actual occasion of quarrel was political and constitutional. The North held tenaciously to the Federal conceptions of Alexander Hamilton. In the South Jefferson's idea of sovereign state rights was paramount."-Winston Churchill

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

How does a country invade itself? IS the US still invading itself with military bases around the US?

---

If a State has withdraw from the Union and established a new independent nation....then its not part of that former country anymore.

"Even after the southern States had acted upon the old-time theory & seceded, the North for a moment was not sure that they had acted beyond their right. It required the terrible exercise of prolonged war to impart to the national idea diffused vitality & authentic power." -Wilson

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state."-William Rawle (PA, 1829) "A Constitutional View of the US" Former West Point Textbook

"some of the original Northern members of the Union under the Constitution had regarded themselves as entitled at any time to take back powers that they had delegated to the general government. The resolutions of the Hartford Convention are directly to this point."-Prof Channing

---

Except that states cannot secede

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

Slavery was an issue of the civil war.

---

An issue that led to secession....not the issue of the war itself.

"But the actual occasion of quarrel was political and constitutional. The North held tenaciously to the Federal conceptions of Alexander Hamilton. In the South Jefferson's idea of sovereign state rights was paramount."-Winston Churchill

---

False. It led to the war.

Read my link.

I'm done arguing about this for today. I have to work.

Slavery was an issue of the Civil War. Every other point that is made ties back to slavery.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

fubar said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

---

I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." -Gen. John B. Gordon

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming." -Prof Allan Nevins

---

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

---

1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

---

You keep saying slavery was protected by the Constitution, and it was. But the slaveholding states believed that non-slaveholding states were: (1) not abiding by the Constitution and (2) would eventually be powerful enough to amend the Constitution or otherwise overrule its protections. They left because of their belief that if they did not leave, they would eventually lose the right to own and abuse other human beings. They said as much repeatedly.

That was the southern motivation. It was ignoble in the extreme, despite all the lost-cause writers' protests to the contrary.

That is not me talking, that is the Vice-Presidency of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Britain made zero moves towards interfering with slavery in the colonies before the revolution; there is zero historical evidence that slavery as an issue motivated our break with Britain. So I don't know what you or anyone on the "far left" is talking about regarding your second point.

---

"If we ain't fighting to keep our slaves, then what in the hell are we fighting for."

Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

And for those who continue to say the south wasn't fighting about slavery, you might want to look into Maj. Gen Parick Cleburne's proposal late in the war to keep secessionist hopes alive ... and just how well it went over.

---

I don't believe that is an actual quote from Forrest. If so, please provide the backup.

---

Correct....Its a changed quote from the real quote he gave an Ohio paper...

---

I get the sentiment, but quoting the founder of the KKK may not be a typical Southern view.

Next time in Savannah, visit Old Fort Jackson. See the presentation the State of Georgian puts on to get the common man's view. Really good.

Then, go up the road to Fort Pulaski, a Fed National Monument, and see the National Park Serivice show.

Extremely interesting. Talk about it at Churchill's on Bay St later that night and tell us the feelings of Georgians.

I will tell you the same thing that I had to explain to my son-in-law (MIT Grad Bostonian), situational awaremness before arguing to loudly...

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

Slavery was an issue of the civil war.

---

An issue that led to secession....not the issue of the war itself.

"But the actual occasion of quarrel was political and constitutional. The North held tenaciously to the Federal conceptions of Alexander Hamilton. In the South Jefferson's idea of sovereign state rights was paramount."-Winston Churchill

---

False. It led to the war.

Read my link.

---

Again...you can say it led to secession

The war was about matters that were not slavery

The North was not waging a war for or against slavery

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

cowboycwr said:

---

Slavery was an issue of the Civil War. Every other point that is made ties back to slavery.

---

The Constitution, the common law, the rights of States....these don't tie back to slavery

And they are still issues/debates/ideas to this very day

"This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force." -Oliver Ellsworth

"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (A. Johnson: Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447)

[Madison in Federalist 39 addressed "the conformity of the plan to republican principles." In considering "the foundation on which [the new government] is to be established" Madison said: "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."]

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

How does a country invade itself? IS the US still invading itself with military bases around the US?

---

If a State has withdraw from the Union and established a new independent nation....then its not part of that former country anymore.

"Even after the southern States had acted upon the old-time theory & seceded, the North for a moment was not sure that they had acted beyond their right. It required the terrible exercise of prolonged war to impart to the national idea diffused vitality & authentic power." -Wilson

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state."-William Rawle (PA, 1829) "A Constitutional View of the US" Former West Point Textbook

"some of the original Northern members of the Union under the Constitution had regarded themselves as entitled at any time to take back powers that they had delegated to the general government. The resolutions of the Hartford Convention are directly to this point."-Prof Channing

---

Except that states cannot secede

---

That matter was very much in doubt in 1860

No Constitutional amendment against it, no national Congressional law against it, no Supreme Court case against it, not even a non-binding Presidential order against it.

"Even after the southern States had acted upon the old-time theory & seceded, the North for a moment was not sure that they had acted beyond their right. It required the terrible exercise of prolonged war to impart to the national idea diffused vitality & authentic power." -Wilson

"A union is made up only of willing states." ~ Wendell Philips, Abolitionist, in a speech in New York, 1860.

"The bright fame of devotion to the Union, kindled in the North by the words and acts of men like Webster & Gay, had so little penetrated the South that hardly anyone there expected the North to fight for the Union, & everyone felt cheated when it did" -Prof. Morison, Harvard

"The advocates of secession were not confined in our history to any one section. They had appeared in the hills of PA, they had met in convention in New England, they had adopted resolutions in KY, they had finally acted in SC."-Coolidge 5/30/1927

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I never understand why so many will argue so much that the civil war was not about slavery. Is it some sort of white guilt? Shame that their ancestors fought for the right to own slaves? The secession documents mention slavery more than any other cause. To say it was not a cause it trying to play semantics.

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

And a bunch of other countries where we have bases.

---

Take a history class. Graduate from college. It might make more sense then.

---

Slavery was an issue of the civil war.

---

An issue that led to secession....not the issue of the war itself.

"But the actual occasion of quarrel was political and constitutional. The North held tenaciously to the Federal conceptions of Alexander Hamilton. In the South Jefferson's idea of sovereign state rights was paramount."-Winston Churchill

---

False. It led to the war.

Read my link.

---

Again...you can say it led to secession

The war was about matters that were not slavery

The North was not waging a war for or against slavery

---

Cause and effect.

Play semantics however you want but without slavery no secession. If you want to make the (false) claim that secession led to the war you still have to have slavery to get there.

The south also started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.