This has already been explained to you...
Attempted explanations dont work if they are unconvincing.
That they are unconvincing to you, is of little moment to me.
and you have duly ignored the explanation.
Um. No.
I've read every post in this thread.
Except you have not responded to many, including many of my own, that demolish your arguments.
It is because of the force of arms of the Union and the political sagacity of Lincoln.
This is like saying the hammer and the nail are the reason why the house was built.
No it isn’t. There are people and forces behind the Union victory, including, as mentioned, Lincoln, who was obviously not a hammer or a nail. What you hope to show is that the force behind the Union victory was Christianity, but your hope is forlorn, since it’s not true, though it is true, as noted above, that there were plenty of Northern Christian abolitionists. But they were outnumbered by Christian slaveholders and their Christian supporters north and south.
Christianity had nothing to do with it.
I say it did. Specifically, by virtue of the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian, most Christians did NOT own slaves, and the democratic (majority) conviction to end slavery drove the political and miilitary actions taken to end it.
We’ve been over this, and again, in your slippery slimy way, you ignore the points that I and others make. The majority of PEOPLE did not own slaves, including no one in the north, where slavery was outlawed. In the south, a minority of plantation owners owned slaves, because they were wealthy and could afford to do so. You are trying, in your slippery slimy way, to imply that most people did not own slaves because they were Christians. You have zero evidence for this. Most people could not afford slaves, whether they wanted to own them or not.
Nor did democracy, because slavery was abolished by the institutions of a Republic.
You dont get to hand-wave away democracy in a space littered with terms like Political, Presidential election, Constitutional Amendment, Congressional....
Oh, but see how, in your slippery slimy way, you ignore my explanation of the distinction between a Republic and a pure democracy? You cited the passage of the amendment abolishing slavery as a rebuttal of my claim that there was no democratic vote of the public to end it. I showed you that your claim actually proved my point. Response from you to my refutation of your claim? Crickets.
Your slaveholders were all Christians and a majority of all Americans, who were mostly Christian, did not support abolition,
The majority of Christians opposed slavery.
...because its not biblical.
Oh, they did? Prove it!
...though many came grudgingly to support it as a way to win the war.
No. They already supported abolition.
Prove it. This is contrary to all historical research and documentation. It is a bare assertion on your part, to sustain your fantasy that Christianity ended slavery in America, the same Christianity whose adherents believe a bible in which slaves are advised to obey their masters.
What was grudgingly supported was the apparent unavoidable need for military action.
I would have been reluctant about that too.
The fact that the opponents of slavery were willing to fight and die for a cause shows how much they supported the abolition of slavery. Quite the opposite of your assertion that they grudgingly, reluctantly came to change their view.
You really are astonishingly ignorant. The vast majority of Union soldiers fought to PRESERVE THE UNION. And that was exactly how Lincoln sold the war to them — Lincoln, who in his first inaugural address, advocated a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery in perpetuity in the south. Lincoln knew full well, as abundant scholarship shows, that if he tried to sell the war as a campaign to abolish slavery, he would have been able to raise few if any soldiers.
Anyway, this is enough of responding to your idiocy for now. I’ll get to the rest tomorrow.