Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americansincluding, mostly, my fellow Southernersclaim that that the cause was economic or states rights or just about anything other than slavery.
But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, its natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...
YES!
Winner!
Oh bull crap.
The only person who's reasons matter was Abe Lincoln, and he specifically said he was going to continue slavery if the south would just stop trying to be independent of Washington D.C.
More bull crap.
Wrong on both counts.
RIGHT, YOU ARE!
I’d like to think that I wouldn’t have supported slavery. But my fealty to the North ends there.
“When they lower me down in that sweet Southern ground, have someone play Dixie for me.”
Sure seems to me the South was defending slavery. You have to take them at their word.
“I didn’t realize your great-grandfather was the guy who started the war. It’s good to know who to blame’’ ROTHFLMAO!!!! Oh man, that’s funny as hell!
And the lost causers get to write the myths.
Lee invaded the North twice.
Yes he did.
But the Princeton professors say Lee was not a good general.
That Abe Lincoln was calling the shots? How could you believe anything else? If not him, then who?
A rebuttal worthy of your knowledge and understanding of this subject.
I grew up believing the usual spiel, and then I learned how what I had been taught doesn't actually conform to bits of history that were subsequently brought to my attention.
I was shocked when I discovered Lincoln was willing to continue slavery. It painted him in a very different light than I had been led to believe.
You betcha
In other words, bloodshed was the result of the failure by each side to give the other side what it wanted.
Except that one side had a moral and acknowledged right (1776) to get what it wanted. (Independence) The other side did not have a right to get what it wanted. (Subjugation)
Your argument is like saying that a rapist and a rape victim are morally equivalent; that each one fights to get what they want is true, but the moral difference between what one wants and what the other wants are not at all the same.
I know that you believe that the secessionists were right and that the Union was wrong. So, this is all simple for you. People have tried to explain to you why they believe that the Union had a right to maintain the integrity of the USA, but you have rejected that reasoning and so you continue to believe as you believe. And, that’s okay. It’s okay that you disagree with other people about this matter and it’s okay that you’re unhappy with the way in which our history unfolded. It shouldn’t shock you to learn that I am unhappy with some of the things that happened in our nation’s history, too. It’s all very normal to feel that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.