The Confederacy was About Slavery

Well it appears that Anus is more and more coming to my points

As he had originally ignored the way things actually occured in our delaings with Indians

My work is done here.

As long as expansion was being organized into lsavery and non slavery states.

Well, duh, that's what "manifest destiny" means - "terra nullius" is legalese for the same thing.

If never a single slave had ever been imported into the Americas, would the Indians have been treated any better than they were?

P.S. legal note, North America was never officially "terra nullius"

But I don't see any evidence to disprove Snood's contention that the Civil War (Confederacy)was about the struggle to control slavery.

I think he said if he could have fought the war without freeing the slaves then he would have.

all the kiwi blustering in the world does not change history.

the war was about slavery.

because slavery is all mixed up in what made it happen.

It was to preserve the USA as one continent, one nation.

Well, fighting the war resulted in freedom for the slaves. So, from then and forevermore, it will be a war known for abolishment of slavery.

Quote:

It was to preserve the USA as one continent, one nation.

Given that the U.S. was not / is not the only country on the continent, that makes on the other side of no sense.

At the beginning of the War President Lincoln resisted "both the antislavery and the proslavery extremists," wrote historian Richard N. Current. "On the one hand, he opposed the abolitionists of the Garrisonian type, 'those who would shiver into fragments the Union of these States; tear to tatters its now venerated constitution; and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue a single hour.' On the other hand, he opposed the propagandists of the Calhounian line, those 'who, for the sake of perpetuating slavery, are beginning to assail and to ridicule the white-man's charter of freedom " the declaration that 'all men are created free and equal.'"3

Historian Current wrote: "Evil though slavery was, Lincoln tolerated it for at least three reasons. First, the Constitution gave the federal government no power to proceed against slavery within the states. In some states, slavery was already well established at the time the Constitution was adopted; these states would never have agreed to the new Union had they not had reason to believe that slavery would continue to be safe inside it. Thus the very Union that Lincoln loved had been made possible by forbearance with regard to this particular evil. Second, even if the federal government possessed the power to abolish slavery, and even if that power could be exercised without danger to the Union, abolition would create more problems than it would solve. Freeing the slaves would set loose millions of people who, with no experience in making their own way, would face the crippling handicap of deep and widespread prejudice. For the good of the Negroes as well as the whites, it seemed to Lincoln that slavery should be eliminated only very gradually. The Negroes, as they were freed, could be resettled outside the United States " in Africa, the West Indies, or Central America, where their color would be no bar to their future success and happiness. Third, there was no need to take positive action against slavery, for the institution would eventually die of its own weight if it was confined to the southern states. That was why the Founding Fathers could reconcile themselves to the continued presence of bondage in the land of the free. Lincoln, like the Fathers, was willing to wait."4

Ronald C. White Jr. wrote in Lincoln's Greatest Speech wrote: "Lincoln's challenge as president was how to balance his opposition to slavery and his fidelity to the Constitution. He was aware that there was a certain truth in [William Lloyd] Garrison's charge that the Constitution was a compromise document that allowed slavery in the South. Lincoln had, however, argued at Cooper Union in 1860 that the founders were united in opposing the spread of slavery to the new territories. He came to believe that the founders believed or hoped that slavery would one day become extinct."5 So did Mr. Lincoln.

Historian Hans L. Trefousse wrote: "It is true that Lincoln never, prior to 1862, advocated federal action to end slavery in the states where it existed. Constitutional obligations were important to him, and he hoped that putting an end to the expansion of the institution would in the end cause its demise in the South."6 "It would do no good to go ahead, any faster than the country," President Lincoln told the Rev. Charles Edwards Lester, himself an emancipation advocate. Mr. Lincoln made his comments after he reversed General John C. Frémont order of emancipation in Missouri in the summer of 1861: "I think [Massachusetts Senator Charles] Sumner and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way. We'll fetch 'em; just give us a little time. We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the army. No, we must wait until every other means has been exhausted. This thunderbolt will keep."7