The sad part of your logic is that you find it acceptable to judge past generations through modern glasses and treat your own unsubstantiated opinions as equivalent to documented evidence of that time. People who cast themselves on such a moral pedestal don’t have to travel far to portray heinous acts as a “duty” or “right” to justify themselves in spite of the law. History has too many examples to list.
So, was the economic and ideological agenda of “preserving the union” (Lincoln’s self-declared motivation for invading the South) then so morally superior as to justify 600,000 casualties? Since he stated AFTER starting the war that he’d re-accept the states WITH slavery intact so long as they’d return to the union, and in ‘65 was working to deport the slaves to Panama, you can’t genuinely weigh the half-million deaths against the abolition of slavery since that was never the motivation. Slavery = bad. Hundreds of thousands dead in the name of “union”=good.
In light of the atrocities in the name on “union”, the North had to come up with a palatable narrative, and slavery it was. Forget that northerners had zero first-hand knowledge of the social dynamic in the South. Forget that many abolitionists realized the horrors of war and begged to let the South secede peacefully. I guess in the world according to your morals, the two wrongs of slavery plus 600,000 deaths makes a right and that’s that.
The question is equally absurd to ask, “So, was the economic and ideological agenda of “preserving the Particular Institution” (the south’s self-declared motivation for invading the secession) then so morally superior as to justify 600,000 casualties?
ROTFLMAO!!! I suggest you and Durand take a long look in the mirror before accusing others of that.
...you can’t genuinely weigh the half-million deaths against the abolition of slavery since that was never the motivation.
How would you weigh those half-million deaths against Jefferson Davis' motivation for starting the war in the first place?