I assume you think the noble purpose was to end slavery
No, to keep the union together.
The idea the the WBTS was a war to end slavery was a post hoc justification
It was a war to save the union. The true historical revisionism is when the neo-Confederates bust out their absurd mental gymnastics and claim the formation of the CSA was about something other than the preservation and expansion of slavery, that's all it was about it. It was a "country" formed for a selfish purpose not for the "preservation of Jeffersonian ideals" or some such. They lie to themselves so they can admire the CSA without supporting slavery.
as was the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions.
Haha. How about you and your loved ones try being slaves for a week and you tell me what you think of it. I don't have any cotton but if you want to come over and clean my bathroom I'll be happy to oblige. I promise I won't violate your wife, we wouldn't want the experience to be too realistic would we? ;)
In fact there wasn't slavery only in the Southern Colonies, but pretty much all over the Western World in the 18th century. We were the only ones who ended it by killing the slave owners.
We were the only ones where the slave owners were politically powerful enough to when the future of slavery was threatened they could go ahead and try to form their own country. And like I said, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment which would have let the Southern states keep slaves for as long as they wanted. That still wasn't good enough for them. The vague wording of that amendment was a disaster and had it been ratified it would be used today to prop up gay marriage (and polygamy in Utah) but it was a last desperate attempt to avoid war. Avoid war was something the Southern states weren't interested in. Imagine California leaving the union in a snit because Obama loses reelection (I know maybe not such a bad idea ;d).
Well gee, isn't that what the Northern States agreed to do?
WELL GEE the Slave states insisted on that provision. They sure didn't care 1 iota about free state's "state rights" not to be complicit in slavery.
Actually I think they wanted the people in new States to be able to decide for themselves.
Unless they decided to be a free state. Which is why slave-supporters rushed across the border into Kansas solely to effect the elections there. They didn't want their power in Congress reduced by the addition of new free states.
I stand by my assertion that Lincoln is the one who dismantled the Government of Jefferson and Madison
By maintaining the unity of the nation they founded. Your argument makes a lot of sense ;D. The Constitution doesn't grant states the right to just leave. You can argue it's implicit but you have a tough case to prove.
I know you think it is ridiculous. But that is because you suffer from a government education.
Nah I didn't pay attention in government school. What I "suffer from" is the lack of a psychological need to believe the Confederacy was the side in the right. Why you, being a Northerner, have that need is a mystery to me.
Happy Christmas!
Sort of the same as King George then?
the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions. Haha. How about you and your loved ones try being slaves for a week and you tell me what you think of it.
People like you just don't ever think, I guess. I would much rather have been Thomas Jefferson's slave than a coal miner in Pennsylvania. And southern slavery was nirvana compared to what my great-grandmother had to go through 70 years ago or so. You see she was deprived of all of her possessions, taken from her home, branded, shipped off somewhere in a cattle car to a camp someplace in a foreign land where she subsisted on meager rations until even that was too inconvenient for her keepers so they killed her. Some of her children suffered the same fate, but it was probably okay with you because she never got to see them after the start of all of this. Don't you ever give me that slavery cr@p!
WELL GEE the Slave states insisted on that provision.
And the northern States AGREED to it.
Why you, being a Northerner, have that need is a mystery to me.
Because, as I have said before, I read. One of things I cited earlier in this thread actually I learned reading James McPhearson who is the most mainstream of Civil War academicians.
ML/NJ
In the spirit of Christmas peace, have some inhalable caffeine:
My 2 cents on the Civil War: If the assassination of Lincoln and the rule of the Radical Reconstructionists. If both of those things hadn’t happened, perhaps the divide that still exists wouldn’t be there.
The unreconstructed truth is hard to take for most brainwashed Yankees. You need to be trained like a little puppy, removing one scale at a time from your eyes as to not let reality scare you.
At gunpoint. Does that not bother you?
2) I'm sure there is an exception, but my personal experience has been that every neo-confederate I've ever met who cites abuse of power and constitutionality---if you press him hard enough---will reveal himself a racist.
The only right that the Southerners fought over was the states' right to own another person. Period. More important, John C. Calhoun made it clear that the REAL essence of that right was to be able to own another person WITHOUT CRITICISM. Yes, folks, that freedom loving Calhoun insisted that there had to be speech codes to prevent anyone from criticizing the institution of slavery.