"and who freed the slaves? Jeff Davis? Noooooo...."
And yet, the slaves in Delaware were the last to be released... (that's in the North) Could it be that the slaves were released in the South NOT for moral reasons, but as "punishment" and an economic back-breaker on the rebeling states? Could it have been a "sanction" instead? Methinks so.
"Ok so the Civil War was about offshore fishing rights or something...nothing to do with tens of thousands of souls held in evil bondage. I know it salves your conscience to pretend that there was ANY other moral imperative than slavery to hang the war on. It's just not good enough. Slave states deserved to lose - God would not support that kind of evil and He didn't. "
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri didn't lose. Where were you going with that?
"That's right, you only made it as far as Pennsylvania, right? Well if you wanna win a war you fight it on the OTHER guys' lands instead of your own... "
Or maybe WAR wasn't what we wanted? Maybe we wanted to be left alone?
Yankee Soldier: Why to you keep fighting?
Confederate Soldier: Because you're down here.
The lack of invasion early on is a clear indication of the intent (or lack there-of) of the Confederacy at it's inception.
"As for "killing your counrtymen" who do you think was taking the bullets? Belgians? "
If I shot a burglar in my house, by your logic, I would be "killin my countryman"
And in closing: Who the Hell said I was talking moral relativism here? You argued that the South was wrong and evil for leaving the Union. I countered that the Union at the time had made no such claims, and that indeed, several Union States still had slavery.
It therefore stands to reason that if the Civi War was about SLAVES, that Delaware wouldn't have been permitted to stay with the Union, Maryland would haev been occupied territory, and Kentucky would have become a "slave state" sympathizer.
And yet, the slaves in Delaware were the last to be released... (that's in the North) Could it be that the slaves were released in the South NOT for moral reasons, but as "punishment" and an economic back-breaker on the rebeling states? Could it have been a "sanction" instead? Methinks so.
Oh come on, Delware may be "North" compared to Georgia, and their slaves last to be released but they
were released. How fast do you think the Confederate States would have let them go by comparison? As for releasing the slaves on "moral" grounds, yes I DO believe morality was at the heart of the act, however slave states and the economic realities of which you spoke earlier (combined with an actual WAR) made political decisions necessary, at least as far as how to time that release.
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri didn't lose. Where were you going with that?
They were smart enough not to secede. They lost their slaves too.
"That's right, you only made it as far as Pennsylvania, right? Well if you wanna win a war you fight it on the OTHER guys' lands instead of your own... "
Or maybe WAR wasn't what we wanted? Maybe we wanted to be left alone?
Yeah, ALONE to keep your slaves! That wasn't going to happen. It was a BAD thing.
If I shot a burglar in my house, by your logic, I would be "killin my countryman"
If you shot a cop coming to take the people you held in bondage (let's say HOSTAGES for modern times) then you'd be a kidnapper and felon as well as a cop killer. "Burgle" is a good word. Burglars take away your property, like say the people you own.
You argued that the South was wrong and evil for leaving the Union. I countered that the Union at the time had made no such claims, and that indeed, several Union States still had slavery.
I did argue that, yes. A united America is a moral good and a boon to the world. We are lucky the Confederacy lost. The United States did claim the Confederate states
were wrong to leave and went to war over it, if memory serves.
It therefore stands to reason that if the Civi War was about SLAVES, that Delaware wouldn't have been permitted to stay with the Union, Maryland would haev been occupied territory, and Kentucky would have become a "slave state" sympathizer.
The south seceded because they could see the Abolitionist movement gaining ground and knew their slave-owning agrarian life was going to be ended sooner or later. The United States went to war to return the Confederate states to the Union and end slavery, both of which they did everywhere, EVEN in Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware.
And that was a good thing, we should thank God for it.
Could it be that the slaves were released in the South NOT for moral reasons, but as "punishment" and an economic back-breaker on the rebeling states? Could it have been a "sanction" instead? Methinks so. And that is suppose to make some difference?
What you guys will never get is that your ancestors were fighting on the wrong side.
No one invaded anyone, the Southern states that seceded were in violation of the laws of the Constitution and the laws were being enforced.