"Why insert a gotcha statement when referring to the secession documents? Is it surprising that the seceding states would refer to slavery in their secession documents; it was a practice that had been lawful since the adoption of the constitution. The South had an economy that was based on a lawful slave workforce and the benefits were being enjoyed by the North and the South."
no gotcha statement intended, simply pointing out facts, and that your argument holds no water.
"Slavery was lawful in the united states until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. Months after the war for Southern Independence. Slavery was not the cause of the War Between the States. The current obsession with slavery as the “cause” of the war rests not on evidence but on ideological considerations of the present day."
already discussed, but it was only lawful in certain states.
"The invasion of the Southern States by Lincoln and his party (a minority of the American people) was due to an agenda of economic domination and not to some benevolent concern for slaves."
already debunked. the north had economic dominance that only got stronger, they did not need the south. furthermore, it's not an invasion when it's rightfully yours. and the North had 21 million people in 23 states, while the South had 9 million (3.5 million of which were slaves) in 11 states. the South was truly in the minority.
"Even when Lincoln issued his "Emancipation Proclamation," he freed few if any slaves. The North, which still had some slaves, kept it's slaves under the Proclamation. The Proclamation had two purposes and neither one was the freeing of slaves. Lincoln hoped that it would 1. instigate a slave rebellion in the South with the murder of many women and children, 2 causing the Confederate soldiers to quit fighting and return home to protect their families. This did not happen, due to the generally good relations between the blacks and whites in the South."
on the contrary, thousands upon thousands of slaves were freed. ("News from South Carolina: Negro Jubilee at Hilton Head", New York Herald, January 7, 1863, p. 5), ( "Interesting from Port Royal". The New York Times. p. 2., January 9, 1863), ( Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, pp 107-8, by Allen C Guelzo (2006)). and Lincoln's intentions had nothing to do with uprisings or rebellions. he wanted to shift international opinion in favor of the north, forever dashing the hopes of the traitors to be recognized as a legitimate country.
also i legitimately lol'd at "generally good relations between the blacks and whites in the South". you call racism and slavery generally good relations? i shudder to think of what bad relations means to you.
"The history taught in schools is a bunch of lies spewed forth by the enemies of the Constitutional government that was in effect before Lincoln's war against the South and the Constitution. Lincoln's Republican war was a successful rebellion against the Constitution and the principles upon which this land was founded"
and now you veer off into crazy town. i'm guessing you are from a southern state (or have ancestors from a southern state)solely based on this statement, and ardent support of the rebellion. to be clear, i am not saying you are racist or anything like that, but it is ok to admit that the South was wrong. what they did has no bearing on you as a person.
"The North did not go to war to free the slaves, or end slavery. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a sham. The North went to war because it faced economic annihilation and as I said above a Southern competitor that controlled the most demanded commodity on earth: cotton.
The United States government made war against the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America. Their reasons were entirely financial, based on the desire to institute protectionist tariffs to protect northern manufacturing interests."
The only reason the north went to war was because the South started it. like i said before, Lincoln was ok with letting the southern states have their little temper tantrum. but once they attacked fort sumter, a federal property, they were the ones that declared war. everything after that is the fault of the south, and the south only. as mentioned earlier, the emancipation proclamation was not a sham. thousands of slaves were immediately freed, and it was used as the basis for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. i have already discussed the false statements about economics and tariffs, at this point it is beating a dead horse.
I would also like to point out and expand on the contemporary reasons for the war, as mentioned in documents from the time:
In December 1860 president-elect Abraham Lincoln wrote to Alexander Stephens (future VP of the rebellion) "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us" (http://www.civilwarcauses.org/aleck.htm)
In March 1861, Alexander Stephens gave what became to be known the Cornerstone Speech, here are some excerpts:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ...[Thomas Jefferson's] ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition."
sounds pretty racist to me.
In 1863 Charles Sumner, the Republican senator, gave a speech during the discussions to admit Kansas as a state. in it he said "There are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights. The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt to vindicate by arms the lordship which had been already asserted in debate. With mad-cap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slavery is declared to be the "corner-stone" of the new edifice." (The Barbarism of Slavery (1860) by Charles Sumner)
in August 1862, Lincoln explained the nationalist goal as the preservation of the Union, one month prior to the Emancipation Proclamation: "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. ...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." (letter to Horace Greeley, found at http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm)
he literally just wanted to preserve the US, regardless of his personal views. Lincoln's war goals were reactions to the war, as opposed to causes. He was a true patriot.
In his 2nd Inaugural Address he stated "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it." (Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address).
So yeah, i'm pretty confident in saying Slavery was a major cause of the civil war.
i encourage you to do more research, spend time at the library or online, look for the original source documents, and to read a variety of interpretative texts. even if it conflicts with your current worldview. in this day and age, you can access a wide variety of information and dig really deep. you will get a clearer picture of how and why your statements are wrong. the civil war is among the most well documented and discussed parts of our history. understanding the reasons behind it will serve you well.
PART 2 CONTINUED:
"Why insert a gotcha statement when referring to the secession documents? Is it surprising that the seceding states would refer to slavery in their secession documents; it was a practice that had been lawful since the adoption of the constitution. The South had an economy that was based on a lawful slave workforce and the benefits were being enjoyed by the North and the South."
no gotcha statement intended, simply pointing out facts, and that your argument holds no water.
"Slavery was lawful in the united states until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. Months after the war for Southern Independence. Slavery was not the cause of the War Between the States. The current obsession with slavery as the “cause” of the war rests not on evidence but on ideological considerations of the present day."
already discussed, but it was only lawful in certain states.
"The invasion of the Southern States by Lincoln and his party (a minority of the American people) was due to an agenda of economic domination and not to some benevolent concern for slaves."
already debunked. the north had economic dominance that only got stronger, they did not need the south. furthermore, it's not an invasion when it's rightfully yours. and the North had 21 million people in 23 states, while the South had 9 million (3.5 million of which were slaves) in 11 states. the South was truly in the minority.
"Even when Lincoln issued his "Emancipation Proclamation," he freed few if any slaves. The North, which still had some slaves, kept it's slaves under the Proclamation. The Proclamation had two purposes and neither one was the freeing of slaves. Lincoln hoped that it would 1. instigate a slave rebellion in the South with the murder of many women and children, 2 causing the Confederate soldiers to quit fighting and return home to protect their families. This did not happen, due to the generally good relations between the blacks and whites in the South."
on the contrary, thousands upon thousands of slaves were freed. ("News from South Carolina: Negro Jubilee at Hilton Head", New York Herald, January 7, 1863, p. 5), ( "Interesting from Port Royal". The New York Times. p. 2., January 9, 1863), ( Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, pp 107-8, by Allen C Guelzo (2006)). and Lincoln's intentions had nothing to do with uprisings or rebellions. he wanted to shift international opinion in favor of the north, forever dashing the hopes of the traitors to be recognized as a legitimate country.
also i legitimately lol'd at "generally good relations between the blacks and whites in the South". you call racism and slavery generally good relations? i shudder to think of what bad relations means to you.
"The history taught in schools is a bunch of lies spewed forth by the enemies of the Constitutional government that was in effect before Lincoln's war against the South and the Constitution. Lincoln's Republican war was a successful rebellion against the Constitution and the principles upon which this land was founded"
and now you veer off into crazy town. i'm guessing you are from a southern state (or have ancestors from a southern state)solely based on this statement, and ardent support of the rebellion. to be clear, i am not saying you are racist or anything like that, but it is ok to admit that the South was wrong. what they did has no bearing on you as a person.
"The North did not go to war to free the slaves, or end slavery. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a sham. The North went to war because it faced economic annihilation and as I said above a Southern competitor that controlled the most demanded commodity on earth: cotton.
The United States government made war against the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America. Their reasons were entirely financial, based on the desire to institute protectionist tariffs to protect northern manufacturing interests."
The only reason the north went to war was because the South started it. like i said before, Lincoln was ok with letting the southern states have their little temper tantrum. but once they attacked fort sumter, a federal property, they were the ones that declared war. everything after that is the fault of the south, and the south only. as mentioned earlier, the emancipation proclamation was not a sham. thousands of slaves were immediately freed, and it was used as the basis for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. i have already discussed the false statements about economics and tariffs, at this point it is beating a dead horse.
I would also like to point out and expand on the contemporary reasons for the war, as mentioned in documents from the time:
In December 1860 president-elect Abraham Lincoln wrote to Alexander Stephens (future VP of the rebellion) "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us" (http://www.civilwarcauses.org/aleck.htm)
In March 1861, Alexander Stephens gave what became to be known the Cornerstone Speech, here are some excerpts:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ...[Thomas Jefferson's] ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition."
sounds pretty racist to me.
In 1863 Charles Sumner, the Republican senator, gave a speech during the discussions to admit Kansas as a state. in it he said "There are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights. The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt to vindicate by arms the lordship which had been already asserted in debate. With mad-cap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slavery is declared to be the "corner-stone" of the new edifice." (The Barbarism of Slavery (1860) by Charles Sumner)
in August 1862, Lincoln explained the nationalist goal as the preservation of the Union, one month prior to the Emancipation Proclamation: "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. ...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." (letter to Horace Greeley, found at http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm)
he literally just wanted to preserve the US, regardless of his personal views. Lincoln's war goals were reactions to the war, as opposed to causes. He was a true patriot.
In his 2nd Inaugural Address he stated "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it." (Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address).
So yeah, i'm pretty confident in saying Slavery was a major cause of the civil war.
i encourage you to do more research, spend time at the library or online, look for the original source documents, and to read a variety of interpretative texts. even if it conflicts with your current worldview. in this day and age, you can access a wide variety of information and dig really deep. you will get a clearer picture of how and why your statements are wrong. the civil war is among the most well documented and discussed parts of our history. understanding the reasons behind it will serve you well.