You both need to stop saying the 21st amendment. Hard to take the rest of your history lessons seriously when you’re saying Lincoln repealed prohibition. It was the 13th amendment.
He was always ambivalent about abolition. Not a fan of slavery, sure. Maybe. But he made it clear over and over and over again that he would much rather keep the country together than free any slaves if he could.
He also MANY times said he wouldn’t even know where freed slaves fit into American society, proposing they be shipped off to some island to colonize so he wouldn’t have to deal with them.
It was only at the insistence of his generals that it was a military necessity or they’d lose the war that he freed some of the slaves.
He might have somewhat wanted to, but it wasn’t an explicit goal of his until it became strategic to the war effort.
Lincoln before he got elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln after elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln during the war: “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them”
Lincoln the moment the British might aid them: “the war is now about slaves and their freedom so Britain won’t feel good about helping”
Yes, Lincoln didn’t like slavery and thought it was bad for the country, but much like the founding fathers he thought it was on its way out naturally. Without the southern states throwing The Great Tantrum Lincoln would have left the slave issue alone
The civil war was started over the economics of slavery, not the cancellation of slavery. The south wanted slaves to count towards votes, but not count towards taxes owed. The north refused to allow that, and they decided that slaves didn’t count towards either. And since without slaves the southern states had much lower populations, that dramatically diminished their voting power. That is why the civil war started.
Edit:I guess you guys missed the whole 3/5ths comprimise
This is revisionist, false, and stinks of the DotC.
The war was about the South keeping it’s slaves, and it’s ability to continue to subjugate an entire race of people. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States states that “our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” That only the “black race” is capable of being slaves. And in case you think this could be twisted somehow to support a rally against taxes, it goes on to say “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union”
This is the opening volley off secession. It talks about commerce but not about taxes. It doesn’t mention counting slaves as votes because they’d won that fight 60 years previously.
What’s the doct? And yeah, the south feared the dissolution of slavery but from my understanding that was not what it was about for the north. Hence the 3/5ths compromise.
You realize that the 3/5ths compromise was added in 1787 at the constitutional convention right? That wasn’t even remotely at issue during the civil war.
So it would seem. A bunch of the sources I was just googling seemed to confirm what I had learned in school, hence this debate. We were never taught about the dotc though, I take it they were a post war group of propagandists?
Post war group of propagandists is a pretty good way to put it.
They were responsible for many of the Confederate statues, and a lot of revisionist rhetoric has its seeds with them.
To be clear, they were effective. And the public school system still bears their mark today, actually it’s probably getting worse.
The South seceded out of fears of abolition. Full stop. Losing the election in a landslide to a Republican was only the last in a huge pile of straws. Ft Sumpter wasn’t even where the fighting started. People had been literally killing each other over the issue of continued/expanded slavery for several years already.
Any source claiming that the South had more nuanced reasons for leaving is either knowingly lying, or has been taken in by a lie.
deleted by creator
You both need to stop saying the 21st amendment. Hard to take the rest of your history lessons seriously when you’re saying Lincoln repealed prohibition. It was the 13th amendment.
deleted by creator
He was always ambivalent about abolition. Not a fan of slavery, sure. Maybe. But he made it clear over and over and over again that he would much rather keep the country together than free any slaves if he could.
He also MANY times said he wouldn’t even know where freed slaves fit into American society, proposing they be shipped off to some island to colonize so he wouldn’t have to deal with them.
It was only at the insistence of his generals that it was a military necessity or they’d lose the war that he freed some of the slaves.
deleted by creator
What the fuck are you on about
deleted by creator
He might have somewhat wanted to, but it wasn’t an explicit goal of his until it became strategic to the war effort.
Lincoln before he got elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln after elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln during the war: “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them”
Lincoln the moment the British might aid them: “the war is now about slaves and their freedom so Britain won’t feel good about helping”
Yes, Lincoln didn’t like slavery and thought it was bad for the country, but much like the founding fathers he thought it was on its way out naturally. Without the southern states throwing The Great Tantrum Lincoln would have left the slave issue alone
deleted by creator
The civil war was started over the economics of slavery, not the cancellation of slavery. The south wanted slaves to count towards votes, but not count towards taxes owed. The north refused to allow that, and they decided that slaves didn’t count towards either. And since without slaves the southern states had much lower populations, that dramatically diminished their voting power. That is why the civil war started.Edit:I guess you guys missed the whole 3/5ths comprimisedeleted by creator
This is revisionist, false, and stinks of the DotC.
The war was about the South keeping it’s slaves, and it’s ability to continue to subjugate an entire race of people. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States states that “our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” That only the “black race” is capable of being slaves. And in case you think this could be twisted somehow to support a rally against taxes, it goes on to say “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union”
This is the opening volley off secession. It talks about commerce but not about taxes. It doesn’t mention counting slaves as votes because they’d won that fight 60 years previously.
What’s the doct? And yeah, the south feared the dissolution of slavery but from my understanding that was not what it was about for the north. Hence the 3/5ths compromise.
Daughters of the Confederacy
You realize that the 3/5ths compromise was added in 1787 at the constitutional convention right? That wasn’t even remotely at issue during the civil war.
So it would seem. A bunch of the sources I was just googling seemed to confirm what I had learned in school, hence this debate. We were never taught about the dotc though, I take it they were a post war group of propagandists?
Post war group of propagandists is a pretty good way to put it.
They were responsible for many of the Confederate statues, and a lot of revisionist rhetoric has its seeds with them.
To be clear, they were effective. And the public school system still bears their mark today, actually it’s probably getting worse.
The South seceded out of fears of abolition. Full stop. Losing the election in a landslide to a Republican was only the last in a huge pile of straws. Ft Sumpter wasn’t even where the fighting started. People had been literally killing each other over the issue of continued/expanded slavery for several years already.
Any source claiming that the South had more nuanced reasons for leaving is either knowingly lying, or has been taken in by a lie.