The Confederacy was About Slavery

you're right, it is creepy.

Similar to an "IF then ELSE" programming logic statement: If the Confederacy was about slavery, then the Union army fighting the Civil War was about (maintaining the Union in my opinion), or else the Union would have let the south secede. How could the Confederacy be about slavery, if the north tolerated slavery in the south for so long? In my opinion the Confederarcy was about the ability to secede, and do what they wanted as a separate nation. Slavery was just their economic engine that was immoral. Perhaps, an analogy to the Holocaust being the means for the Nazis to "cow" Europeans into submission when the German army occupied their country (i.e., "Thank goodness the Germans only want the Jews, and if they have them, they might just leave the rest of us alone.")

And, since there is such strong feelings on this subject, I also believe that the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to force the Civil War to be fought until the Confederacy completely and totally surrendered, rather than at some time sue for peace. Meaning, the north wanted to maintain the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation told the south that there would be no COMPROMISES and suing for peace was not acceptable. Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation also ended the south's banking system, since mortgages were needed to afford more slaves. It was a system that if it was more honestly discussed should shame many a citizen. Even the Egyptians in the Exodus story allowed the Hebrews to be in bondage as a family that was not separated.

That the Confederacy was about slavery does't mean that the impetus of the North in the Civil War was about anti-slavery.

agreed. The War , originally was started by the Confederacy as an act of separation and the Union fought, initially, to reunite the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation reversed all that as the issue of slavery became THE major issue in history.

Quite apart from the unambiguous fact that so-called "state troops" all over the south stole United States property by breaking into and looting armories (which had been filled with more than one hundred thousand firearms by John Floyd, the Secretary of war in 1859 and 1860); apart from the fact that they attempted to seize forts Barrancas and McRee, near Pensacola, on the evening of January 8, 1861 (they were driven off); apart from the fact that cadets from the state military academy of South Carolina fired on an unarmed merchant ship on January 9, 1861--apart from those acts of war levied, unprovoked, on the Untied States, apart from those gross thefts, they were clearly in violation of several provisions of Article One, Section Ten of the constitution. This is the entire text of that section:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Those punks started that war--their big mouths wrote a check their sorry collective ass could not cash. So they lost the war. They've been lying and whining about it ever since. I have zero sympathy for them.

I disagree with the second part of your comment. No one likes to cast America and Americans in as favorable a light as possible than me, but the North's motivations, not withstanding Lincoln's heroic gesture, were not so altruistic as you suggest.

How do you feel about the statement "That the confederacy was about slavery doesn't mean that the impetus of the North in the Civil war was about anti-slavery."

What, that history reports that the abolition of slavery became the primary concern of the Union's war "Post Emancipation Proclamation" ?

Can you provide me some counter evidence ?

If there were reasons other than abolition that led to the war, they didn't all magically disappear once Lincoln issued the Emanicipation Proclamation.

All the young men who fought and died for the Union didn't do so to free slaves. It would be nice to think they did but that is far too simplistic a view of the war.

what the hell are you talking about. Did you read any of the above??

I like engaging with you...until you become a pompous ass as you have here.

What the hell I'm talking about is not consistent with what you believe.

Tough ****.

There is no such thing as altruistic reasons for war.

Tell that to FM.

I'm telling 'you' because you seem to think you are the only one here who is knowledgeable about American history. How nice for you.

So agreeing with me is some sort of barb? Ha!

You must be very special.

I largely agree with that statement, though like all such statements, it's not comprehensive. Certainly there were many thousands of northerners (and thousands of southerners) who fought for the Union and to end slavery. However, for most of them, the object was to preserve the Union. There was enough anti-slavery sentiment, though, far more than that statement implied, that many Federal troops would sing a little ditty to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, which ran:

John Brown's body lies amouldering in the grave,
John Brown's body lies amouldering in the grave,
John Brown's body lies amouldering in the grave,
But his truth is marching on.

Lots and lots of sinners--damned few saints.

It seems that their 21st Amendment contradicts their 4th Amendment.

Not really, their 21st really states that, while thy will abolish slavery sometime, they just wont do it until their Congress passes a law.

Im really not being Pompous, This above statement just doesnt make any sense. Th Confederacy was based upon slavery as Snood stated in his thread title. The WAR was begun by the states that seceded . When the states seceded, the war did not yet happen and the US Congress was busy trying to cobble several compromises..

Precise and concise thats all I ask. Stop being a damn rattlesnake