Quote:
Originally Posted by deacon blues
A little history lesson: Why was the Union threatened? Because Lincoln was elected in 1860 and he was against the spread of SLAVERY to new territories. His opponent in the election was Democrat Stephen Douglas who was a proponent of "popular sovereignty" the idea that local citizens should decide whether slavery should spread to new territories. His support of the Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 which undermined the previous Missouri Compromise helped him to garner the Democratic nomination. He was seen as someone who would allow slavery to spread, and since there was a new party, the Republican party formed on an abolitionist platform, the Southern States were hoping for a Douglas win. When Lincoln won the presidency it spelled the beginning of cessation of the southern states from the union. So, history is explicit that the cost of 600,000 American lives was because of slavery no matter how you want to slice it.
If the Southern States were threatening the Union because the sitting president was against the spread of slavery, how are you going to redefine history to say that it was about preserving the union? Why was the Union being threatened in the first place? S-L-A-V-E-R-Y.
Actually, you make the argument that white supremacists and a lot of southern revisionists make about the Civil War. They say it was about state's rights, not slavery. They recoil at the idea that the real issue was human trafficking and the inhumanity of forced labor on individuals.
|
I'm not saying slavery wasn't an issue. I am just saying that thousands of whites didn't sacrifice their lives to free black slaves. They had northern economic interests and the interests of a unified nation that was greater than the welfare of black slaves. would you die to free black men or chinese from slavery today? no, but if your economic interests and the glory of your country were at stake, then yes. it was personal, not altruistic.
Threaded Mode
