I demand that one side cannot proclaim they are fighting to end slavery when they are in fact condoning it in their own land. This clearly makes the fight about something other than slavery.
This week you have already shown yourself to be a hypocrite, someone who condemns Lincoln for his beliefs and actions but would think and act in the same way if confronted with a secession situation today.
That's as much of a stretch as comparing this:
To This:
As they fight or after they fight they come to realize that there are weaknesses or contradictions in their own positions and in their own society and they work to put things right.
What was right in their minds was that they would control the money and government policy, and everyone else would just do as they were told. Who in the North was getting protected? The very wealthy and powerful men who got congressmen elected. That's who.
We also got rid of segregation because it made us unpopular in countries we wanted to win over.
I thought we got rid of it because the majority came to see it as morally wrong. I didn't know there was an ulterior motive for doing it.
Who is "they"?
The same they I'm always talking about. The elite politically connected wealthy plutocrats who mostly live between Washington DC and Boston, and who control massive amounts of industry and economics in this nation. The "they" that is still in control of the media and the "deep state", and who is even now trying to defeat Trump because he offers the normal people of this nation hope for their own futures rather then servitude to the elite "cloud people" aristocracy.
I'm referring to the 1860 version of these people.
At least a million people bought Uncle Tom's Cabin.
That would be about 4% of that population.
At least a hundred thousand belonged to anti-slavery societies.
That would be less than half of 1%.
I doubt they were all willing to keep slavers in business.
They were apparently willing to keep in business the slave holders that remained loyal to the Union.
As for the rest of the country, you are blaming them for being "nice" and wanting to please Southerners and not make waves. So whether Northerners oppose slavery or accept it, they can't win and are condemned by you.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here.
Withdrawal from the union is possible by negotiated, mutual consent.
I argue often with people who claim there is no constitutional provisions for withdrawing from the Union, and now you are trying to claim that there is a process of negotiated mutual consent? What happened to the Union is forever position?
And why should a person have to ask a group of people for permission to no longer associate with them? The association was joined voluntarily, and so it should be voluntary to remain.
I think most legal experts would agree with that now.
I have never accepted "Argumentum ad Populum" as a valid proof of anything. Too often a mass of people will believe something stupid or ridiculous, so the fact that a bunch of some group or other believes something, is not actual proof of the something being true. Global warming for example. "Russian interference in the election", for another.
You referred to unionists as "monsters" and implied that therefore the slaveowners you thought were "monsters" apparently weren't.
They were both slaveholders, but the larger, more massive nation of slave holders, beat the much smaller nation of slaveholders, and as a consequence of the power they had amassed, they grew the government to massively intrude in everyone's lives.
Why does the war make slaveowners innocent victims of "monsters"?
Didn't say they were innocent. Said the people who defeated them were just as bad, but ended up creating another evil with which we are still dealing. And excessive, overbearing government that rams F@ggot marriage down our throats, along with Abortion, illegal immigration, welfare, attacks on our religion, and excessive taxation, among other abuses.
You excuse slavery and slaveowners and then when somebody points out what you are doing you accuse them of always bringing up slavery and not having other arguments.
I do nothing of the sort. I simply point out that the reasons the aggressor invaded had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with power and control. I point out that slavery is a red herring to cover up the real reason why the Northern states joined their men together to fight other states which simply wanted to be separated from Washington DC's control.
It is hypocritical to complain about a practice which you condoned so long as you controlled the money stream it produced.
Breaking the nation up into two or more countries would mean making the continent a playground for foreign interests.
And why would that be? We've had Canada and Mexico along side our borders for centuries, and apart from some relatively minor conflicts with them, everyone has gotten along okay. They still rule their territory, and we still rule ours, and we make no efforts to seize theirs, and they make no efforts to seize ours.
So Europe would suddenly be a prospect for a takeover? I think if the US and the CS had managed to coexist peacefully together, each would come to the aid of the other when necessary.
In fact, I think they would have merged again at some point in the future.