Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt own slaves.) Prove me wrong.

[Politesse]

And the northern states did not “invade” the south. You cannot “invade” your own territory.

The Battle Of Gettysburg was an attempt by the Confederacy to invade Pennsylvania, in the North. The first major invasion attempt in the civil war by either side.

Later in the war, they marched on the Capitol itself, throwing away thousands of lives after a campaign they knew probably would not succeed, mostly in hopes that it would upset Lincoln's electoral chances. Remind you of anything? But they like nothing so much as playing victim...

 

[pood]

They did attempt to march on the Capitol in 1864, but did not come close to it, unlike the Confederate-flag-waving freaks who actually temporarily overran it in 2021.

 

[Swammerdami]

No, it proves that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The union wasn't threatened by anything other than slavery and the status of African Americans.

The Northern states weren't threatened by anything in particular. But they invaded anyway.

I cannot believe that a significant number of northern boys went to fight, kill and die, to rescue black people.

The Civil War began as an attempt to save the Union, with no plans for Emancipation. Most on both sides expected the War to be over soon. Nobody guessed it would turn into one of the most brutal and deadly wars in history.

With the brutality and horror as the War dragged on, Northern soldiers needed inspiration to persevere. They found that inspiration in one of America's greatest martyrs. Allow me to again "plug" my collateral ancestor.




A certain song became the most popular song in the North during that dreadful War. Here is my favorite rendition:

 

[pood]

You’re a collateral descendant of John Brown? Cool.

I think it’s true that AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation, and two years of horrific war, a lot (though far from all or perhaps even most) of northerners, especially the soldiers, began to warm to the idea of fighting the war not just to preserve the Union, but also to end slavery. Yet this stuff, like everything, is all so complicated, and immune to easy bromides. A lot of northerners, for example, wanted to free the slaves not because they necessarily opposed slavery, but to punish the southerners who had cost them so much blood. It’s further true that a lot of people who opposed slavery did NOT think that black were their social equals. They felt that while blacks were morally and intellectually inferior, slavery itself was immoral. This SEEMS to have been Lincoln’s position in the 1850s, though he was a cunning and cagy bastard who, though nicknamed Honest Abe, did not readily disclose his true thoughts. For example, during the Lincoln-Douglass debates I believe it was, Lincoln said that blacks were “certainly not equal to me in color,” which, if you think about it, doesn’t really mean very much — yeah, on average, they had darker skins than white people. He also said, that they were “perhaps not my moral or intellectual equal,” but note the cagy PERHAPS. It’s as though Honest Abe, ever the astute politician, was wriggling around saying something like, “Yeah, they are just as good as you and me, and if you don’t think so, bite me.” But certainly by the end of the war, Lincoln had changed. Always in favor of black political equality if not social equality, he now seemed flat-out for both and counted Frederick Douglass as a great friend. It’s a tragedy that some stupid freak shot him and prevented him from presiding over Reconstruction.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think it’s true that AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation,

Whats the Emancipation Proclamation?
Oh yeah, now I remember.
Slavery.

...and two years of horrific war,

So the Emancipation Proclamation came first. Got it.

The Emancipation Proclamation about slavery.

...a lot (though far from all or perhaps even most) northerners, especially the soldiers, began to warm to the idea of fighting the war not just to preserve the Union, but also to end slavery.

You think that it took 2 years of fighting for people to finally realise the war was about the Emancipation Proclamation - Slavery.

...an afterthought?

*rolls eyes*

Most Americans were Christians. Most Americans did not own slaves. Most Americans agreed with their bible believing President Lincoln that Slavery was wrong.

The only relevance of the word 'union' here is that the majority (of Christians) were united in this endeavour.

To say that staying united in pursuit of their goal to stay united is a redundant tautology and misses the point.

 

[steve_bank]

Wow tautology.....Lion must be smarter than we give him credit for.

The Emancipation Proclamation was at least in part intended to foster rebellion in the south by slaves.

Lion, do you argue that the majority of Christians in the day opposed slavery?

 

[pood]

I think it’s true that AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation,

Whats the Emancipation Proclamation?
Oh yeah, now I remember.
Slavery.

No shit, Sherlock. Except I don’t think you “remember” anything about the Emancipation Proclamation, as evidenced by the balance of your epically idiotic post.

...and two years of horrific war,

So the Emancipation Proclamation came first. Got it.

No, it DID NOT COME FIRST. How dense are you, or how dense do you pretend to be? It came after “two years of horrific war” fought to PRESERVE THE UNION AND NOT TO END SLAVERY.

The Emancipation Proclamation about slavery.

Which, as you probably don’t know because of your hidebound and obstinate ignorance, only said that slave states “still in rebellion” against Union authority would be subject to the ending of slavery in those states AFTER a ninety-day deadline was given. The proclamation was to take effect on Jan. 1, 1863. If, before that day, the states in rebellion returned to the union fold, then NO slaves in those states would be freed. This again ratifies the original point: the war was fought to preserve the union and not to end slavery. By the way, the proclamation DID NOT APPLY to those regions of the south that the north had already subdued and occupied. As to the rest, those states still in rebellion after Jan. 1, 1863, the proclamation did not apply there, either, because those states were still under Confederate control!

...a lot (though far from all or perhaps even most) northerners, especially the soldiers, began to warm to the idea of fighting the war not just to preserve the Union, but also to end slavery.

You think that it took 2 years of fighting for people to finally realise the war was about the Emancipation Proclamation - Slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT EXIST at the start of the war. Lincoln only issued it after nearly two years of fighting. Again, are you really this dense, or just feigning to be? But if the latter, who, here, do you think you are fooling? I feel pretty certain that you are fooling no one here. Maybe you can successfully palm off this idiocy on CARM.

...an afterthought?

*rolls eyes*

Most Americans were Christians. Most Americans did not own slaves. Most Americans agreed with their bible believing President Lincoln that Slavery was wrong.

Yes, we know. That was the REAL meaning of your thread title, as Bilby noted sometime back, which you obscured with weasel words. And it’s false. Most Americans did NOT believe slavery was wrong, and among those who did, almost entirely in the north, few of them were interested in fighting a war to end slavery. They were interested only in fighting a war to PRESERVE THE UNION. Try to recall these three words: PRESERVE THE UNION.

And, as has been explained to you, but to which the density (or disingenuousness?) of your skull is impervious, Lincoln was not a Christian and in fact wrote a tract against Christianity in his youth which his friends destroyed because they feared it would imperil his political aspirations.

The only relevance of the word 'union' here is that the majority (of Christians) were united in this endeavour.

To say that staying united in pursuit of their goal to stay united is a redundant tautology and misses the point.

No. The UNION was the shorthand name for the country as a whole. The north was fighting to preserve the UNION — The United States of America, north and south, as a single political entity — and not to END SLAVERY.

The sad fact for you and your fantasies is this: the majority of CHRISTIANS in America were just fine and dandy with slavery, including practically every single Christian in the south. And all the slaveholders were nice, churchgoing Christians. The north waged the war to preserve the union, and not to end slavery.

 

[pood]

In fact, Lincoln introduced the Emancipation not in an effort to end slavery, but to end the war — the proclamation was held out as an inducement to to the south to lay down their arms, SO THAT THEY COULD KEEP THEIR SLAVES. Lincoln hoped at least several states in rebellion would give up their arms precisely so that they could keep their slaves. HIs gambit failed. In the end, it took the 13th amendment, and not the proclamation, to end slavery.

 

[pood]

You would know all this if you were not so poorly educated. The Emancipation Proclamation was essentially a bribe — end your rebellion and keep your slaves. Lincoln very much hoped at least some of the states would accept the bribe, and if enough did, that alone would cause the Confederacy as a whole to collapse, with slavery intact.

 

[pood]

Lincoln and religion

In New Salem Lincoln associated with freethinkers who doubted the divinity of Jesus, and he wrote an essay mocking the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Lincoln’s friends, anxious to protect his budding political career, threw the manuscript into the fire.

The utility of Lincoln’s Bible ends with death; it’s not a ticket to the afterlife. In this, as in most of his religious and philosophical thought, Lincoln showed no evidence of undergoing a conversion to conventional Christianity.

“When I do good I feel good. When I do bad I feel bad. That’s my religion.”

— A. Lincoln

 

[bilby]

Yet this stuff, like everything, is all so complicated, and immune to easy bromides.

You need to get yourself some religion.

With religion, everything is simple. Everyone is either good, or evil. Everything people do is either good, or evil. And anything good is done by Christians, and as a consequence solely of their Christianity; While anything evil that is apparently done by Christians is in fact being done by "Christist Actors", who are not Christian at all, but who cunningly pretend to be, by attending Christian churches for their entire lives, reading and promoting the Bible, praying Christian prayers, and singing Christian hymns.

If slavery is bad, then Christians were all always and forever united in their opposition to it, and its demise was solely and exclusively a consequence of Christians enacting Christianity.

If the Bible doesn't condemn it, you must be reading it wrong. There are no slaves in the Bible, just houseguests who you can buy and sell, who you can beat to the verge of death, and whose children are your property, all as a consequence of your Christian charity in inviting them into your home.

If reality appears to be complex, you are looking at it all wrong. Stop thinking*, and start believing. All will become easy, straightforward, and simple.






* You are actually still allowed to think, as long as what you are thinking is along the lines of "Am I being a sufficiently obedient servant of my church?" or "What could I do to more effectively obey the priests who claim to speak for God?". So let nobody suggest that thinking is discouraged.

 

[bilby]

Most Americans were Christians.

True.

Most Americans did not own slaves.

True.

Most Americans agreed with their bible believing President Lincoln that Slavery was wrong.

Not only false, but obviously, clearly, demonstrably and totally false.

As has been pointed out to you several times already in this thread.

 

[pood]

Here’s something else for Lion to chew on, not that he will. In 1860, Republican Lincoln was elected president with a mere 39 percent of the popular vote — 39! — because it was a four-way race. The national Democratic Party split in two over the issue of slavery. Was it because the Democrats were divided over whether slavery should exist? Oh, heavens no! It was because one Democratic faction, led by Stephen A Douglas, was perfectly okie-doke with slavery, but wanted the residents of the states and territories the right to vote for or against the inclusion of it in their lands — so-called “popular sovereignty,” or Pop-Sov. The OTHER Democratic faction, led by Breckinridge, was having none of that — taking their cue from the 1857 Dred Scott decision, they wanted to extend slavery into the territories even against the will of the people living there. Nice, huh? The fourth candidate was also a slavery supporter, but desired some unimaginable compromise to hold the union together. So, there ya go, Lion — three out of four of the 1860 presidential candidates were either okie-doke with slavery or wished to actively and forcibly extend it, even against the will of the people. And they together took 61 percent of the total popular vote in your fantasy land where supposedly a majority of Christian Americans opposed slavery!

 

[pood]

It should also be noted that most northerners who opposed slavery were worried, after the Dred Scott decision (of which I am sure Lion is utterly ignorant) that slavery would be forcibly extended INTO THE NORTH. They did not care about the slaves as such — they cared about what was then called their own “free labor” being undermined by what was then called “servile” (slave) labor. They didn’t give a shit about the slaves — they gave a shit about holding on to their jobs.

 

[steve_bank]

I agree that the war was in the end was about states' rights vs federal government.

Slavery was not addressed in the constitution because it wound not get support.

 

[pood]

I agree that the war was in the end was about states' rights vs federal government.

Slavery was not addressed in the constitution because it wound not get support.

Slavery was indeed addressed in the constitution with weasel words — “persons held to service.”

The war was entirely about slavery and had nothing to do with states’ rights vs. federal rights. This fact is proved by Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech and by the fact that at the end of the war the central Confederate government was trying to take over everything it could and blatantly usurp “states’ rights.” “States’ rights’ is BS palaver for apologists for racists.

 

[bilby]

It should also be noted that most northerners who opposed slavery were worried, after the Dred Scott decision (of which I am sure Lion is utterly ignorant) that slavery would be forcibly extended INTO THE NORTH. They did not care about the slaves as such — they cared about what was then called their own “free labor” being undermined by what was then called “servile” (slave) labor. They didn’t give a shit about the slaves — they gave a shit about holding on to their jobs.

In hindsight, they should have just built a wall, and made the Confederacy pay for it.

 

[Politesse]

I agree that the war was in the end was about states' rights vs federal government.

Slavery was not addressed in the constitution because it wound not get support.

Uh, slavery was very specifically and clearly included in the Constitution of the would-be breakaway state:

Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The North may not have been fighting to end slavery, but the South was most certainly fighting to protect it.

 

[steve_bank]

If there was an attempt to end slavery at the framing of the constitution there would have been no consensus for a federal government. As it was COTUS as we have it was the second attempt at a government.

Interpretation: The Slave Trade Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Slave Trade Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, is one of a handful of provisions in the original Constitution related to slavery, though it does not use the word “slave.” This Clause prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of “persons” (understood at the time to mean primarily enslaved African persons) where the existing state governments saw fit to allow it, until some twenty years after the Constitution took effect. It was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was pivotal to the economy, and states where the abolition of slavery had been accomplished or was contemplated.

Slave States, U.S. History. the states that permitted slavery between 1820 and 1860: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia

 

[pood]

The war was entirely about slavery ..

That's what I thought

Wow, what pathetic weaseling, repeating the rotten tactic you’ve used before of taking a quote out of contest, which I believe is a clear violation of the rules here. It’s perfectly clear from the broader context what I meant by the quote that you mutilated. I was talking about the war being entirely about slavery FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE SOUTH. I was replying to Steve’s claim that the war, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE SOUTH, was about states’ rights vs. federal rights. It wasn’t. It was entirely about preserving and spreading slavery. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE NORTH, which is what I had been discussing earlier with you, the war was about PRESERVING THE UNION.

You must have known this, when you mutilated my quote to make it seem as if I said something different from what I actually said. You’ve done this before. I will await your retraction of the above quote-mine. If you don’t retract, I will report the post, and note, with evidence, that this is not the first time you’ve engaged in this sleazy tactic.