But for some reason it's apologists can't refrain from bringing the topic up, as if it has some bearing on the Unions reasons for invading.
There were many people in the North that did not like slavery, but that is not why they went to war. Simple concept, why is it so hard to understand?
Because the apologists cannot stop bringing it up every time they talk about their right to force someone back onto their plantation.
The South, on the other hand fought to maintain slavery.
Like this, for example. You keep saying your reasons had nothing to do with slavery, and then you keep mentioning slavery, as if it is justification for what you did.
You insist on talking out both sides of your mouth.
I keep bringing up slavery because that is why the South was fighting. I really don’t think this is hard to understand, but let me summarize once again for you.
The SOUTH Seceded from the Union due to Slavery. The fact that they did it due to slavery is very clear from the Articles of Secession of those states that listed reasons in their Articles. The most blatant example of this is in the Mississippi Article of Secession, which stated, and I quote, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.”
The NORTH fought the war to maintain the Union.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that two different sides in a fight might have separate reasons for fighting? If I keep on mentioning slavery, that’s because that was the reason that the South mentioned for seceding and, as they were the ones who started the war, their reasons are more important than the North, who merely reacted to the illegal actions of the South.