HISTORY FACT!!!!! Im gonna blow your mind!!?

NascarKY #2

New member
The civil war WASNT about slavery!

Nope, you all were misinformed in school.

It was about state rights.

Slavery was.....id say...7th on the list.

The North didnt care about slavery, THEY had slaves. But the north was more liberal (by todays standards) and slavery was used as the 'main cause' by the north. Im not going to say it was propaganda, but it was to, stir up hatred for the south.

Whats so wrong about state rights, small government, and less of the crap we have today?

AND YES, SLAVERY WAS WRONG! Im just trying to educate the ignorant.
 
I t was about states' rights, and a slave-based economy that the south had. According to the museum in Gettysburg, slavery did play a large part in alienating the south from the north. And the south wanted expansion of slavery into the west, the north did not support that.
 
That's why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed those slaves who were NOT under Federal control. All the slaves in Union states or in areas already captured by Union forces were still slaves.
 
No, it doesn't blow my mind. Some historians have been presenting that case for 100 years. Others say exactly the opposite. Apparently you find the former more convincing. Me, I don't know.
 
Not surprised.
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government---that nation---of which that constitution was the organic law.

Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter."
Abraham Lincoln
 
"states rights", huh?

and what "right" did they try to exercise because they were afraid the north was eventually going to phase out slavery?

secession.


you fail. return to kindergarten.
 
I am also aware of the fact that the Civil War was not about slavery, but unfortunately, the liberals have rewritten history to suit their own ideals.

And my grandparents told me is what about cotton trade. The North was demanding cotton and paying very little for it. So we said no, and then the war happened.
 
Back
Top