Replies

Speaking for myself, I'm tired of most rational discussions of the War Between the States being filled with innuendo that to question the popular historical story is akin to promoting or endorsing slavery.

My personal research into this subject has convinced me that the South certainly had no illusions that slavery wasn't a dying institution and they certainly weren't fighting to preserve it per se. Lincoln's words indicated he wasn't intent on abolishing slavery, at least at the beginning of the war. There's documentation that slavery existed in the North and certainly in the West and that the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing for those slaves. There is documentation that riots in NYC broke out to prevent Union troops being sent to the South.

Lets see some documented facts, from the period just before the war or at its immediate start that bolsters any contention that the war was caused solely, or even mostly, to end slavery.

Why is the "slavery card" always pulled out instead of some cold hard facts?

Why is the "slavery card" always pulled out instead of some cold hard facts?
Because my friend, one mustn't let the "cold hard facts" stand in the way of a perfectly good cultural bias.

Give it some time though. It may not be long before the 'cut and paste cookie monsters' drop in and enlighten us on the "cold hard facts".

Why is the "slavery card" always pulled out instead of some cold hard facts?

Perhaps it is because the 'cold hard facts' all indicate that the defense of the institution of slavery was the primary reason for secession? If one reads the Declaration of the Causes of Secession for the various states it becomes clear. Mississippi, for example, said,

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. "

Georgia said,

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "

Texas said,

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. "

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the confederacy, said,

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

The southern leadership - in it's own words - makes it clear what the most important factor in their decision to enter into rebellion was and that was the institution of slavery.

Speaking for myself, I'm tired of most rational discussions of the War Between the States being filled with innuendo that to question the popular historical story is akin to promoting or endorsing slavery.
It might be because there are some (most, I hope) people who are actually interested in making sure the facts are known.

Lets see some documented facts, from the period just before the war or at its immediate start that bolsters any contention that the war was caused solely, or even mostly, to end slavery.
I think you've got it backwards. The folks who start these threads are always claiming that the southern states didn't secede solely, or even mostly, to keep slavery. As the secession documents from those states clearly indicate, slavery topped the list. No amount of 21st century revisionism can change what the states themselves said at the time.

Why is the "slavery card" always pulled out instead of some cold hard facts?

Because when it comes to war the winners ALWAYS write the histories.

To find out anything but what the winners want you to know, you must dig further than a normal search will take you.