Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp; x
x to DiogenesLamp: ""Destroyed" workforce = freed slaves?"

DiogenesLamp responding: "I am not going to indulge the need to pretend the welfare of the slaves is what motivated this conflict.
I also note how you focus in on that like it's a life line.
No, we're not buying that propaganda anymore.
The North had slaves too..."

Typical of pro-Confederates, they always try to divert attention from the absolute centrality of slavery, not to the North, of course, but to Fire-Eater secessionists, especially in the Deep South.
Northerners cared about slavery only secondarily, but to Deep South secessionists slavery was not just an issue, it was the issue over which they first declared their secessions and, in the end, refused to settle for peace on any terms better than "unconditional surrender".

Sure, Northerners cared about slavery, somewhat, but what they really cared about was defeating the military power which had first provoked war, then started and declared war on the United States, while supporting pro-Confederates in Union states and territories.

643 posted on 07/17/2016 9:07:18 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK
Typical of pro-Confederates, they always try to divert attention from the absolute centrality of slavery, not to the North, of course, but to Fire-Eater secessionists, especially in the Deep South.

Well since the Union didn't regard it as a cause or goal of the war, why should we pay any attention to it when they didn't?

Slavery is a side issue that you and others keep desperately trying to divert the discussion towards.

You only want to talk about it until I show you how much money the Northern Power Brokers were making from it.

Northerners cared about slavery only secondarily, but to Deep South secessionists slavery was not just an issue, it was the issue over which they first declared their secessions and, in the end, refused to settle for peace on any terms better than "unconditional surrender".

So you are just going to ignore their attempts to negotiate a peaceable settlement over that Fort for which the Union no longer had any legitimate use?

Apart from that, the Southern reasons for leaving are not germane to the Northern Reasons for attacking. It was Lincoln who decided that there would be a war, and it was he who decided for how long it would continue.

He is the only man that had the power to start it or stop it, and it mattered not at all what the Southern people did, so long as someone wanted war with them, they were obliged to participate in it.

Sure, Northerners cared about slavery, somewhat, but what they really cared about was defeating the military power which had first provoked war, then started and declared war on the United States, while supporting pro-Confederates in Union states and territories.

Well sure, since Lincoln rigged that outcome and controlled what they were being told. Hearst did something similar in the Spanish/American war.

That is the power of propaganda.

694 posted on 07/18/2016 3:41:41 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson