First off, you are correct. It was a states rights issue. Slavery was as big of an issue as taxation or the division of free vs slave states to be admitted into the union. If I remember correctly he stated as well as wrote on the subject to the effect you have pointed out. His initial freeing of the slaves served two fold, one was to hinder the souths ability to produce material, and the second was to bolster the northern troop numbers. And yes, before someone pulls some bull shit straw man argument, there were other arguments that were raised as well, but Lincoln is known to have stated these himself verbally and in print.,
the south started the civil war over property rights. that the opposing antagonist would have allowed it to continue if it were within his power to avoid the bloodbath speaks to that leaders conviction to avoid war at all cost not the southern grievance
Yes, it started because the south was paranoid the that the newly elected president was coming for their slaves. www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html The link has every word each state gave as to why they were succeeding/declaring war. Fear of the north electing a Republican president hostile to slavery is the reason given. Wait, what?
well..you are right and wrong, Mags. States right were far deeper than just slavery. There was less of a challenge to the existing slave states. The focus was on the new states being admitted into the union. Also you have to understand that taxation, import and export, property rights (yes, including slaves but far from exclusive) and in general the ability of a state to have the final say in matters. Again this goes back to the founding of this country. In the first go round in 1776 we had a weak federal government and strong states, when the constitution was signed that brought into effect a reversal of positions. Historically the argument festered especially in the south for the next 80 years. One could easily say that the root cause was because of this.
agreed that it can be an underlying cause but defense of slavery appears in all articles of grievance in all the states as the primary cause. the fact that slavery was outlawed west of the ohio river in 1787, the same time that the constitution was ratified,1787, not 1776, seems to compel a negative reasoning to representation as an argument. states entering the union from territories west of the ohio as free states doomed the south from ever holding a majority or even maintaining status quo representation. your mention of the mason Dixon line was an attempt to placate southern/slave states with the opportunity for representation with westward expansion. the articles of grievance for the dissolution/succession put forth prominently and often exclusively the defense of slavery/states property rights
very well stated. I did not want to get too far into the weeds, but you were able to do so deftly. Hence the reference to 1776 and the signing of the constitution in 1787. Where our modern history books like to make Lincoln out to be single minded in his fight to free slaves, those that read deeper find otherwise.
I love the "white" washing of history. Soon the spin on the Civil War will be that it was started by black people because they wanted to remain slaves. Lincoln hated black people and only fought the civil war to take their fun party time enslavement away and force them to become taxpayers.
oh thats great. Can you imagine the Black Lives Matter crowd covering this subject? On second thought, looks like you already have.
This guy went into a bookstore to get a copy of Trump's new immigration book. The guy behind the counter was Mexican and told the the customer to "get the fuck out, and never come back" to which the customer replied "ya, thats the one"
The end game for illegals is the same. They don't want assimilation, they want to take over. La Raza! Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
