Replies

There were no slaves in the "North" at the time of the War. Border states were not considered the "North." Now in earlier times there certainly were lots of slaves and parts of NY state had as high or higher concentrations as any state. Northern business interests had plenty of connections to the earlier slave trade including shippers, bankers, even overseers. Northerners often hated blacks maybe even more than most slave owners. But none of that mattered since those states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Oregon, Washington) had all outlawed slavery. And that infuriated the Slavers.

However, none of that is relevant to the issue of protecting the Union or destroying it for the sake of slavery. Except for the Democrats the North held protecting and maintaining the Union in the highest priority while the South was duped into valuing slavery more than their Country.

I do not cherry pick history to support my points there is no reason to do so since the facts are on my side. It is not my fault if you don't know it as is illustrated by your typical defense of these traitors. "They were all guilty" is not a valid argument particularly when you are trying to equate 1750 Northerners with those of 1860. And you are under the curious delusion that those who could hate Blacks could not also hate Slavery.

As regards the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln had no authority to ban slavery in the Border States (the only places in the Union there was still slavery) thus its applicability only to the areas in Rebellion was perfectly justified.

"And you are under the curious delusion that those who could hate Blacks could not also hate Slavery."

You ignore at least forty years of propaganda created to undo the goodwill that the veterans, both north and south, managed to find for one another after the war was ended. The institution of slavery, despite being present throughout all recorded history on every continent and within every people, has been deconstructed into hatred of black people, unique to the United States and the United States only. But, to the contrary, human bondage was accepted as a societal norm leading up to that point, with the notable exception of outspoken Christians in England and the United States, including the much-reviled south. The rest of the world didn't appear to have any problem with it, and much of the world still doesn't. What is peculiar to me is, that these self-same deconstructionists seem to want to ignore Karl Marx on the matter of the erroneously named "Civil War;" Marx himself regarded the matter as being economic... in effect, a tariff war.

New Jersey still has slaves as late as 1865 but hey believe what you must, I'll stick with unrevised history. Please refrain yourself from giving me the monolithic view of the slave trade and the South. For the record, I believe Lincoln did what he had to do to keep the Union together but the hypocrisy of the North is profound and well noted.

Good day!