That's probably the primary reason, his campaign platform was to end slavery. He also pushed and passed the 13th amendment.
- Status
That's probably the primary reason, his campaign platform was to end slavery. He also pushed and passed the 13th amendment.
Manly States rights and the freedom to choose what and where and to whom they wanted as far as what went on in the particular state... Slavery, price of cotton, didnt want a centralized federal gubberment telling them what they can and can not do, take your pick...
Fact is slavery was out the door anyways, majority of countries as well as ours was weeding it out, a few more years it would of been gone....
Heck good old Abe did not even like them we still treated them as substandard humans even after the slavery abolishment..
How is that for a start of a good debate?
Fact is slavery was out the door anyways, majority of countries as well as ours was weeding it out, a few more years it would of been gone....
Heck good old Abe did not even like them we still treated them as substandard humans even after the slavery abolishment..
How is that for a start of a good debate?
I'm saying mainly states rights, as listed above, and slavery as for tax purposes. It's also worth noting that both Lincoln and Grant both owned slaves while President Davis and General Lee did not. As an aside, google images, black confederates, I doubt they were fighting for slavery.
There's at least one member here who also posts on Stormfront. I forget why I was background-checking him, but that was definitely a
moment for me.No I won't say who.
I had an American History teacher in high school who made a pretty convincing case for the safety pin causing the Civil War.
But really,
glocktogo said:
is the reason. This is what all wars are fought over, ultimately.
Control over someone else.
In my opinion I don't consider that conflict as a civil war which usually has two or more opposing side battling for control. The South simply opted to get out and go their own way. The North opted to not let the South go and used force to keep them in the union.
See... control. Same as what we're dealing with today as DC attempts to regulate and law us to death to make us tow the line like good little sheeple.
In my opinion I don't consider that conflict as a civil war which usually has two or more opposing side battling for control. The South simply opted to get out and go their own way. The North opted to not let the South go and used force to keep them in the union.
See... control. Same as what we're dealing with today as DC attempts to regulate and law us to death to make us tow the line like good little sheeple.
And do you REALLY believe states are capable of existing on their own, without the Federal government.
And frankly, I am an American first and an Oklahoman second.
Negative. They didnt simply choose to opt out. They opted out, then attacked a Union fort. THEY declared war.
Lemme see... 13 colonies existed before a central government was considered. They eventually became sovereign, independent states (small nations per se). They agreed it was mutually beneficial to band together to defeat England in order to secure their freedom. Afterwards, with the shortcomings of the AoC, they decided on fixing the problems and though not their original intent, came up with the Constitution.
I'm an Oklahoman first, American second. Same as the Drafters, Founders and Ratifiers of the Constitution were.
Just the way I view it. But I'm just an ignorant, simple truck driver who isn't originally from the US. What do I know.
- Status
Similar threads
