On 1/5/2023 at 7:21 PM, Longwood50 said:

Try showing them this. Or don't you believe the words of Lincoln who was the person responsible for declaring the civil war as to what his objective was. 

This letter was written as a response to Horace Greely asking the President to declare emancipation as the reason for the war.  Now if the purpose from the onset was to free the slaves WHY WOULD GREELY IN AN OPEN LETTER ENCOURAGE THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE IT SO. 

The fact is the war was strictly on economic and states rights issues.  However killing ones brothers to preserve the tarrifs that protected the industry of the Northern States was hardly as sympathetic reason as freeing enslaved men.  Hence the revisionist history that ignores the facts. 
While Lincoln waited for his generals to secure a victory, New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley provided Lincoln with an opportunity to test public reaction to emancipation as a war measure. In an open letter to President Lincoln published on August 20 under the heading "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," Greeley urged Lincoln to recognize slavery as the root cause of the war and act boldly with regard to emancipation

This letter was written as a response to Horace Greely asking the President to declare emancipation as the reason for the war.  Now if the purpose from the onset was to free the slaves WHY WOULD GREELY IN AN OPEN LETTER ENCOURAGE THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE IT SO. 

The fact is the war was strictly on economic and states rights issues.  However killing ones brothers to preserve the tarrifs that protected the industry of the Northern States was hardly as sympathetic reason as freeing enslaved men.  Hence the revisionist history that ignores the facts. 

 If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that
Abraham Lincoln Letter




Now Omicron unless you can't read, this response very clearly articulates that abolishing slavery was not the cause of the war and the abolitionists later brought up emancipation well after the war was already underway. 

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4233400/?r=-3.463,-0.034,7.926,3.132,0

 

The Southern States knew it was about abolition. Not only did they specifically and repeatedly say so, but they vociferously opposed Lincoln on the grounds that he was an abolitionist at the head of an abolitionist political party. It was only after the war that Southerners came up with a different narrative.

On 1/6/2023 at 8:40 AM, proton said:

Because he invaded the south to force them back into a Union making it no longer longer a voluntary one. Union by force was not the Union before Lincoln.

Even if your comment about legality of the withdrawal from the Union is valid, that doesn't change the fact that 7 Southern states had already withdrawn before Lincoln took office.

On 1/5/2023 at 12:10 PM, Longwood50 said:

No it was not.  SHOW ME WHERE THE NORTH introduced any action to ban slavery.  As said the Missouri Compromise already GUARANTEED that those states that were slave states could remain so as well as any below the Missouri Compromise line.  

So the argument that they fought over slavery is patently false.  Neither Lincoln, or Congress took any legislative action to stop slavery.   So there was NO REASON TO SECEDE.   There was not even any discussion in congress to ban slavery.  

It is an "urban legend" spread through the ages as some form or moral crusade.  It was not.  Slavery would have ended one way or another without the war.   Mechanization was already starting the end of slavery

What don't you understand about the fact that the new Republican party was specifically abolitionist. The South understood the threat it posed as the newspapers show in their pre civil war reporting.

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The Southern States knew it was about abolition. Not only did they specifically and repeatedly say so, but they vociferously opposed Lincoln on the grounds that he was an abolitionist at the head of an abolitionist political party. It was only after the war that Southerners came up with a different narrative.

"It wasn't about slavery" is the false narrative associated with southern types that refer to the civil war as the war of Northern aggression. You get all kinds of revisionist history on these matters. Such as Trumpist types still associating modern democrats with slavery even though as far as racism the two parties did a complete 180.

I think some posters have a valid point of view, as far as I can tell they lived through the Civil war.

"On the day the American people accepted Abraham Lincoln's invasion of a sovereign state the Republic died and the empire was born." -Washington Post, 1905

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

"It wasn't about slavery" is the false narrative associated with southern types that refer to the civil war as the war of Northern aggression. You get all kinds of revisionist history on these matters. Such as Trumpist types still associating modern democrats with slavery even though as far as racism the two parties did a complete 180.

So why did Lincoln say the invasion of the south was about preserving the Union, and why did Davis say it was about states rights? Certainly slavery was an element in the conflict, but not the main cause. If Lincoln was so committed to ending slavery why did he wait almost 2 years into the war to issue the proclamation to end slavery, and why did it only apply to the CSA when there were still slaves in Union states?

Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia had legal Slavery unaffected by the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation was just a ploy to help the war effort, an attempt to cause an uprising of southern slaves, which failed. Trust you to rope Trump into the civil war!

If the CSA had won at least the country would have had a better anthem than that cringe worthy star spangled banner???? 

 

 

On 1/12/2023 at 1:37 PM, proton said:

If the CSA had won at least the country would have had a better anthem than that cringe worthy star spangled banner???? 

 

 

It would be two countries then.

Down with the traitor!

 

 

 

 

On 1/12/2023 at 1:07 PM, proton said:

....

Trust you to rope Trump into the civil war!

Not only me.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/04/the-american-civil-war-didnt-end-and-trump-is-a-confederate-president

 

 

The American civil war didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president

 

His supporters hark back to an 1860s fantasy of white male dominance. But the Confederacy won’t win in the long run

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Not only me.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/04/the-american-civil-war-didnt-end-and-trump-is-a-confederate-president

 

 

The American civil war didn't end. And Trump is a Confederate president

 

His supporters hark back to an 1860s fantasy of white male dominance. But the Confederacy won’t win in the long run

You do realise that the Guardian, when in Manchester in the 1860's supported the CSA?

 

One extract from the paper on October 10, 1862, read: 'It was an evil day both for America and the world when he (Lincoln) was chosen President of the United States.'

A year later it even opposed the Proclamation of Emancipation - which freed slaves - and described the President's time in office after his assassination as 'abhorrent'

 

Now of course it is just an activist paper for the extreme left. One of the biggest supporters of white male dominance at the time was of course Lincoln:

 

“I am not nor ever have been in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It would be two countries then.

Down with the traitor!

 

 

 

 

The traitor being Lincoln, who invaded the south illegally and ignored the constitution left right and centre. Had he lost he might well have been executed. Well he was anyway.

On 12/27/2022 at 12:59 PM, seedy said:

Since the beginning of time, these words have been true ...

 

“Isn’t that rebellion? Yes or no?”
“Yes. But there are mitigating circumstances. Serious miti—”
“There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.”
“Unless you win.”

 

Shogun

Some validity here. Bottom line CSA lost, those who evidenced their frustration/anger !/6/'21 lost.