One ordinary Confederate Solder summed it up well when ask, " Why are you fighting when you don't own slaves?" His answer was , because you are down here!yes again, it's a simple question that the people who keep crying "muh slavery" won't even attempt to answer.
>was the South fighting to *impose* slavery in the North?
>was the North fighting to *end* slavery in the South?
these aren't mutual. we fought to "end terrorism" when we invaded the middle east. i remember W flying in on that jet and declaring "mission accomplished" but last time i checked there's still terrorism, especially in that part of the world?
like i established in my previous posts, *slavery does indeed still exist in the world, and arguably in every major city in the US, particularly the "sanctuary cities".*
if you view the war as the South fighting the North, being the aggressor, how can you be an aggressor when you are fighting to *maintain* something that is being eliminated thru an external force?
if you view the war as the North fighting the South, being the aggressor, then it makes sense how the North would be literally *invading* the South in order to end slavery. ***of course*** it makes sense for the media manipulators of the times then *and* the times now to refer to the civil war as a "war on slavery".
but as my analogy, it is really proper to call our middle east engagements, the longest in US history, a "war on terror"?
a war on drugs?
like, you're still operating under the completely false assumption that the South being defeated *ended* slavery.