Yeah, you could say that.But you're wrong.
Posting a link to a racist like Lew Rockewell doesn't negate the cold, hard fact that the only reason the South seceded was to protect their organized exploitation of slaves.Very adorable attempt. Lazy, but cute.Try making an argument yourself, instead of linking to something which doesn't even address what I said.
I can't make an argument with you because you'll just retort that I'm a racist, as you did with Lew Rockwell (who didn't write the column I linked to, by the way).OK, Abraham Lincoln said that he was more than willing to preserve the institution of slavery in order to preserve the Union. This was in his inaugural address to the nation for his first term.What more evidence do you need? That Lincoln only 'freed' the slaves who were in Confederate occupied territories with the Emacipation Proclaimation?How about how Maryland and West Virginia both retained their slaves, despite being part of the Union?But none of this matters to you Bret because you've already determined that I am a racist because I dare to question what my grade-skool teacher (who probably had an IQ of 91) told me when I was younger.
I think you've missed the point entirely. The South started the Civil War with the sole purpose of ensuring the protection of their tyranny, not because Lincoln was a threat to slavery, but because he openly said he would oppose new states adopting slavery and this made Southern plantation owners nervous enough to send poor people of to die for their ability to never lift a finger and do real work.Care to actually address that, or are you just obsessed with Lincoln and his intentions? I didn't ask, "Wasn't the North just amazing for electing the Great Emancipator?"And if I were you, I wouldn't go knocking a 91 IQ. I'm not sure your's even reaches room temperature.
And I don't think you're a racist. In this case, you just happen to be defending racists who violently defended their racist views. It's sort of like... I don't wish you dead, I just don't want you to be alive anymore.
The civil war was about power and money. The rights of the black people were a leverage point that wasn't even popular in the north. The north didn't have slaves...but it relied HEAVILY on the bulk materials produced by slaves in the south. Wool, cotton, leather, and so on. Just about as many people in the north were pro slavery as the south.
Bret, I doubt you even read the article I linked, so I'll just quote it for you:"What Lincoln did say very clearly about war in his first inaugural address was that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," but "beyond that there will no be any invasion of any state . . ." That is, if Southern secession made it impossible for Washington, D.C. to "collect the duties and imposts" (i.e., tariffs on imports, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier), then there will be an invasion. He followed through with this threat, and that is why there was a war that ended up killing 670,000 Americans, including some 50,000 Southern civilians, while maiming for life more than a million."
Again... I didn't talk about why the Northern soldiers fought, because they could have been fighting for any reason or no reason, it would make no difference regarding what I said. I didn't say, "Wow, how noble of the North!" You guys really don't want to address why the fighting started, do you?Just as an anology, saying that America only entered WWII because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and that they weren't fighting to free Jews in concentration camps is not a defense of Hitler or the actions of Nazis. You have all been jaded by the rhetorical fallacy of politics that if you undermine the honor of one side, it makes the other automatically better. That's simply not how it works. One side doesn't have to be the good guy in order for another side to be abominable.The entire cause of the war was fear among plantation owners that their way of life might be ending, even though Lincoln hadn't even suggested it. The Slave States were freaking out before Lincoln was even sworn in and had a chance to show them he wasn't going to infringe of their "right" to own people.How sad you all are for not being able to simply say, "Yes, the South was wrong and slavery was also wrong." It's pathetic and intellectually embarrassing. It's not as though history has not given you the benefit of hindsight, so I don't understand what excuse there is for glorifying the pitiful Slave States. Maybe pride... maybe some misguided belief that opposing a federal government is always right on any issue (even if it's the ownership and abuse of other human beings). I don't know, I really don't get it.
Bret, as to your second comment, this is why I avoid addressing you in most cases. You never want to discuss, you always insult and throw a fit over the tiniest infraction on your ill-defined ideals.In other words, it seems to me that vast majority of your posts where you want to 'discuss' are just posts so you can insult those who challenge your views.I'm sorry I've wasted your time, as it seems I've taken your bait. I won't make that mistake again. I'm done with this post and I'm down with responding to you and your posts.
This has nothing to do with ideals. Am I defending anyone or anything, here? Or, am I pointing out a blatant error in the view of those who post here about the evils of government and the glories of the Slave States?You pissed me off when you implied I would dismiss you as a racist. I dismiss you as a fool, not as a racist. Go cry about it.
Also, regarding the cause of the war, not that I expect you'll read this:I'm not sure how you can say the North invaded the Slave States when it was the Slave States which fired on Northern troops at Fort Sumter. I have no doubt that the North also wanted to collect the money due from the South, but troops were mobilized in after the hostile takeover of a fortified island.Of course, you're welcome to your delusions.
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.