The Confederacy is the symbol of racist losers.

[toubab]

The situation neither began nor ended with Lincoln.

The issue of secession came to a head with him, and ended with him.

 

[toubab]

The "much of it economic in nature" was the institution of slavery. Read from the Declaration.

Nearly all of it, in the South.

 

[Queersetti]

There was no real threat to ending slavery.

The pertinent issue was not whether or not slavery would end, but whether or not it would expand. It was the debate over slavery in the territories that escalated to the point that civil war became, if not inevitable, at least conceivable.

 

[Pookie]

There was no Confederacy at first. But we will get nowhere in this discussion. It's been going on for generations, and will continue. I'm from near where Lincoln grew up in Indiana, so have had an interest in him and his motivations since I was very young. He believed strongly in the Union. Preserving it was all he cared about, at any cost, especially once he was president of it. He was perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue.

He might or might not have been willing, but South Carolina saw him clearly as "not willing". Again from it's Declaration:

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

 

[toubab]

The pertinent issue was not whether or not slavery would end, but whether or not it would expand. It was the debate over slavery in the territories that escalated to the point that civil war became, if not inevitable, at least conceivable.

The South could not have expanded slavery to the territories, had they been allowed to secede from the Union.

 

[toubab]

He might or might not have been willing, but South Carolina saw him clearly as "not willing". Again from it's Declaration:

I assure you, he was willing.

 

[Pookie]

I assure you, he was willing.

The South wasn't assured. That's the point. Your continued deflections are duly noted.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The South could not have expanded slavery to the territories, had they been allowed to secede from the Union.

Of course the South could have expanded slavery into the territories. The territories wishing to adopt slavery would have joined the Confederate States rather than the Union.

You're just making up arguments as you go along. The Civil War was in large part about the South's refusal to give up slavery because they depended on slave labor to stay competitive and profitable.

As was already pointed out, more than one state listed the abolition of slavery as their reason for secession.

 

[toubab]

The South wasn't assured. That's the point. Your continued deflections are duly noted.

Lincoln stated very clearly, and he was very good with the English language, that he was no threat to slavery in the South. What is interesting to me is that he preferred war over peace, when it came down to it. His "half divided" speech only mattered if the Union was indivisible, which it was, in Lincoln's mind.

 

[Queersetti]

The South could not have expanded slavery to the territories, had they been allowed to secede from the Union.

They couldn't? They not only planned to, they also planned to eventually conquer Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.

 

[Queersetti]

Lincoln stated very clearly, and he was very good with the English language, that he was no threat to slavery in the South. What is interesting to me is that he preferred war over peace, when it came down to it. His "half divided" speech only mattered if the Union was indivisible, which it was, in Lincoln's mind.

And events proved him to be correct.

 

[toubab]

Of course the South could have expanded slavery into the territories. The territories wishing to adopt slavery would have joined the Confederate States rather than the Union.

You're just making up arguments as you go along. The Civil War was in large part about the South's refusal to give up slavery because they depended on slave labor to stay competitive and profitable.

As was already pointed out, more than one state listed the abolition of slavery as their reason for secession.

The territories could not have joined the Confederacy. And there was no real threat by Lincoln or the North to end slavery in the South.

 

[toubab]

Of course the South could have expanded slavery into the territories. The territories wishing to adopt slavery would have joined the Confederate States rather than the Union.

You're just making up arguments as you go along. The Civil War was in large part about the South's refusal to give up slavery because they depended on slave labor to stay competitive and profitable.

As was already pointed out, more than one state listed the abolition of slavery as their reason for secession.

The territories could not have joined the Confederacy. And there was no real threat by Lincoln or the North to end slavery in the South. The war was over the right of secession.

 

[Queersetti]

Of course the South could have expanded slavery into the territories. The territories wishing to adopt slavery would have joined the Confederate States rather than the Union.

You're just making up arguments as you go along. The Civil War was in large part about the South's refusal to give up slavery because they depended on slave labor to stay competitive and profitable.

As was already pointed out, more than one state listed the abolition of slavery as their reason for secession.

At the very least, New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma would almost certainly have become become slave territory. And I suspect that Kansas would have been a continuous battleground for decades. And what about Missouri and Kentucky? They did not secede, but their populations were probably more pro-slavery than otherwise. It seems likely that they would have been embroiled in long term guerrilla conflict if the south had seceded without opposition.

 

[toubab]

They couldn't? They not only planned to, they also planned to eventually conquer Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.

That would have meant all kinds of wars.

 

[Queersetti]

That would have meant all kinds of wars.

It would, indeed. One more reason the north was not willing to let them establish themselves as a permanent hostile power on the continent.

 

[toubab]

At the very least, New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma would almost certainly have become become slave territory. And I suspect that Kansas would have been a continuous battleground for decades. And what about Missouri and Kentucky? They did not secede, but their populations were probably more pro-slavery than otherwise. It seems likely that they would have been embroiled in long term guerrilla conflict if the south had seceded without opposition.

How could all that have happened, unless Lincoln and the US government allowed it?

 

[toubab]

It would, indeed. One more reason the north was not willing to let them establish themselves as a permanent hostile power on the continent.

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Pookie]

Lincoln stated very clearly, and he was very good with the English language, that he was no threat to slavery in the South. ...

Doesn't matter. The South clearly believed he intended to do what was needed to end slavery. You can twist it all you want and make Lincoln look like the the biggest friend the South could ever hope for. But the South viewed him as quite the opposite, and South Carolina clearly stated as much in their Declaration Of Succession.

 

[Queersetti]

How could all that have happened, unless Lincoln and the US government allowed it?

It couldn't. Your argument was that Lincoln and the US government should have allowed it, was it not?

Didn't you postulate that the south should have been left to "go in peace"?

 

[toubab]

It couldn't. Your argument was that Lincoln and the US government should have allowed it, was it not?

Didn't you postulate that the south should have been left to "go in peace"?

No, I merely noted the South was not allowed to go in peace.

 

[toubab]

Doesn't matter. The South clearly believed he intended to do what was needed to end slavery. You can twist it all you want and make Lincoln look like the the biggest friend the South could ever hope for. But the South viewed him as quite the opposite, and South Carolina clearly stated as much in their Declaration Of Succession.

That's ridiculous. Lincoln at no time said he intended to end slavery. He very clearly stated the opposite, repeatedly.

 

[Queersetti]

No, I merely noted the South was not allowed to go in peace.

My apology then, I misread you.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The vampires killed Lincolns son. They where using the slaves as livestock. He clearly wanted to end slavery to destroy the vampires!

 

[toubab]

My apology then, I misread you.

Not necessary. And I've enjoyed discussing this with you. These discussions usually turn nasty. You've been a gentleman, and I compliment you for it.