Read your history, Yankee scum.
The North did not raise the idea of freeing the slaves until the war was half over.
90% or more of the Rebel Soldiers were not slave owners and were not fighting for the right to own them.
Washington owned slaves. Should we disown him as the Father of the Country?
Should we rename all the towns, cities and schools that are named after slave owners.
Frankly YOU sound like a democrat.
Be gone Yankee scum.
True, the republicans had to keep demorat slave owners of the North appeased to fight southern demorats until they could emancipate them.
So what? They fought for the government that defended slavery, just like good soldiers of the Germany fought for the NAZI Party - where is the NAZI Party now in Germany? The same should be where the Demorat Party should be.
Yeppers, a liberal red herring, used by them quite often . He was also helped get the ball rolling in the abolition of slavery. His help in creating our nation so that all men can have liberty gave good people the ability to end slavery.
Stop defending demorat hiistory.
That's either utterly ignorant or a gross distortion. The idea of abolition had been around since America's founding. Just because it wasn't official policy, doesn't mean it wasn't the root cause. Lincoln was a pragmatist. When he ran he said he wouldn't interfere with slavery in states where it existed, but opposed any new slave states. The southern elites who owned the slaves and controlled southern politics didn't believe him, and in any case knew that eventually without expanding slavery into the new states they would ultimately be too small a minority to maintain slavery. So they seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in.
Being a pragmatist Lincoln's first goal was to save the union. He said if he could save it by freeing all the slaves he would, if he could save it by freeing none he would, and if he could save it by freeing some and leaving others he would. He also knew if he issued the emancipation proclamation after a string of southern victories it would look like desperation. So he waited until after the union victory at Antietam to do so. That's a far cry form not raising the idea before 1863.
The history is quite clear (you have read the Articles of Secession from the various states, right?)
The North did not fight to end Slavery, they fought to maintain the Union.
The South on the other hand, did fight to preserve Slavery, and only to preserve Slavery. If you doubt that, I suggest the reading of the Mississippi Article of Secession, then the South Carolina Article. If you can read those and claim that the only reason those States was seceded was something other than Slavery, I suggest you retake your English as a Second Language classes.
Actually, emancipation for the slaves of DC was first proposed to Congress in December of 1861, and over the bitter opposition of slaveholders, it was passed in April of 1862. In July 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, which freed the slaves of any slaveowner serving in the confederate army. In September 1862, Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which would go into effect on January 1, 1863. The idea of emancipating the slaves was raised long before the halfway point of the war.
Sorry I missed this one.
Your 90% figure may be accurate, but is misleading for several reasons:
First, 100% of the Confederate leadership were slave holders and protecting their "peculiar institution" was the strongest factor motivating their actions.
Second, slave ownership varied greatly from the Deep South, at nearly 50% of families owning slaves to border states with 10% or fewer.
But most regions with fewer than 20% slave owning families (i.e., western Virginia) voted against secession, and supported the Union army.
Third, most soldiers of both armies were single young men and teenagers who didn't own anything of value, much less slaves.
In today's terms, a slave in 1860 cost about what a top of the line luxury car does today.
So what percent of today's young men drive a new Porsche?
Same thing.
However, the vast majority of those young men did have fathers, uncles, brothers or cousins who owned expensive slaves, and 100% understood that losing the war meant losing all such "property".
Finally, the reason we know that's all true is because huge numbers of Southerners who did NOT own slaves, and had no commitment to that institution, they served the Union Army -- From Western Virginia, Maryland, Eastern Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri & others.
Or, we could put it this way: in areas where 90% of Southern families did NOT own slaves, those troops were not Confederates, they were part of the Union Army.
Boy, you play nice with others, don’t you?