(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

It wasn't that Obama was disliked because he was black.

It was that he was disliked because he sucked.

(10-30-2023 09:06 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

The war should have been about slavery. It just wasn't to the degree people like to claim today. Nobody then or now likes to say a war was about profits.

What the **** difference does it make? Does your weak reinterpretation of the motives change that the South was entirely dependent on forced labor in their mono-economy? Does it change the fact that the south broke the union and killed Americans on both sides to maintain an economy that relies on the subjugation of people, their lives, and their offspring?

We don't need your analysis of what you think happened. All one needs to do is read the South Carolina and Georgia articles of secession. Your white washing of what happened makes you look like you're sympathizing with traitors and your quibbling about a participation trophy commissioned in 1914 confirms it.

Yet you are providing yours. No one is defending the institution of slavery however some of us are intellectually honest enough to not judge past generations based on todays's circumstances.

You can't both sides slavery. This isn't about judging past people with past actions, this is about today people glorifying past, systemic, engrained human rights injustices under the patently transparent guise of "respecting the culture" of a bunch of traitors.

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

None of this is revisionist history. Lincoln is noted as having said what I posted. Granted, you probably didn't learn about it because it wasn't taught in schools. There's a reason for that, and we are seeing that reason in this thread.

(10-30-2023 09:06 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

The war should have been about slavery. It just wasn't to the degree people like to claim today. Nobody then or now likes to say a war was about profits.

What the **** difference does it make? Does your weak reinterpretation of the motives change that the South was entirely dependent on forced labor in their mono-economy? Does it change the fact that the south broke the union and killed Americans on both sides to maintain an economy that relies on the subjugation of people, their lives, and their offspring?

We don't need your analysis of what you think happened. All one needs to do is read the South Carolina and Georgia articles of secession. Your white washing of what happened makes you look like you're sympathizing with traitors and your quibbling about a participation trophy commissioned in 1914 confirms it.

Yet you are providing yours. No one is defending the institution of slavery however some of us are intellectually honest enough to not judge past generations based on todays's circumstances.

And some are more than comfortable just regurgitating what they've been fed. It's best to just ignore those who have repeatedly proven to be incapable of intelligent thought.

(10-30-2023 09:26 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

None of this is revisionist history. Lincoln is noted as having said what I posted. Granted, you probably didn't learn about it because it wasn't taught in schools. There's a reason for that, and we are seeing that reason in this thread.

Poor stupid prog filth. You can read Lincoln' own words on what he thought. Prog filthare indoctrinatef zealots. Its s waste of time. The State has told them what to believe and they anger at your heresey. Just enjoy the reeeeeee

(10-30-2023 09:09 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

It wasn't that Obama was disliked because he was black.

It was that he was disliked because he sucked.

Plus he was half white.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermingling with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Lincoln to Douglas, Chicago Daily Press and Tribune on October 15, 1858


Stfu filth.
Read a book.


Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

More fun presidential quotes

“I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will"- Obama

Bwahahahaha

We need a fun presidential quote thread

(10-29-2023 10:20 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  The executive actions taken by Lincoln in violation of the Constitution, particularly revoking habeus corpus (arresting and detaining opponents of the War), was clearly dictatorial and wrong. It is really surprising that some of the normally well-enlightened folks on this forum are ignorant of these facts.

If I were to rank Lincoln and Lee and Sherman (and I know direct decendents of both Generals), Lee would be ranked as the most moral and logical, with Lincoln and Sherman distant #2 and #3. Lincoln was no Saint and Sherman even worse.

At the same time, you can't judge people based on today's morals.

Sherman is still a 4 letter word in Georgia. He intended to "make Georgia howl." He did. And it would be a war crime today, but much of it was necessary to end the war.

Lincoln freed the slaves in the seceding states. He also wanted to ship them to Liberia instead of having them stay here.

(10-30-2023 08:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

Well, the first black president was half white and a socialist who hid his Muslim inclinations and a lot of other things, and it had nothing to do with the Civil War. Slavery was an abomination, but the issue was a sideline in the war, which was commercial in nature with northern textile companies pissed about the sale of cotton to England. England did what Empires do, they claimed to hate slavery, but used slave labor for cheaper raw materials. You know like Biden and the corporatists do with China today, and India, and the Philippines, and Indonesia, etc, etc, etc.

Slavery wasn't a sideline of the war. Without it, the southern plantation owners couldn't grow and harvest crops on the scale they were able to. How that would have affected the cash crops is difficult to say, but the cost of inputs to plant, grow and harvest crops would have been higher. It could have forced the south to pursue other economic growth opportunities - maybe even industrializing.

(10-30-2023 09:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 10:20 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  The executive actions taken by Lincoln in violation of the Constitution, particularly revoking habeus corpus (arresting and detaining opponents of the War), was clearly dictatorial and wrong. It is really surprising that some of the normally well-enlightened folks on this forum are ignorant of these facts.

If I were to rank Lincoln and Lee and Sherman (and I know direct decendents of both Generals), Lee would be ranked as the most moral and logical, with Lincoln and Sherman distant #2 and #3. Lincoln was no Saint and Sherman even worse.

At the same time, you can't judge people based on today's morals.

Sherman is still a 4 letter word in Georgia. He intended to "make Georgia howl." He did. And it would be a war crime today, but much of it was necessary to end the war.

Lincoln freed the slaves in the seceding states. He also wanted to ship them to Liberia instead of having them stay here.

Yankee Hero Sherman-

"we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." Sherman to Grant, telegram 1867



Seriously, do the govt schools teach any real history or just that its ok to cut off your pecker?

Somebody do some LBJ quotes.

That will fun.


But by all means, melt lee statues

united states of retardia

(10-30-2023 09:11 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:06 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

The war should have been about slavery. It just wasn't to the degree people like to claim today. Nobody then or now likes to say a war was about profits.

What the **** difference does it make? Does your weak reinterpretation of the motives change that the South was entirely dependent on forced labor in their mono-economy? Does it change the fact that the south broke the union and killed Americans on both sides to maintain an economy that relies on the subjugation of people, their lives, and their offspring?

We don't need your analysis of what you think happened. All one needs to do is read the South Carolina and Georgia articles of secession. Your white washing of what happened makes you look like you're sympathizing with traitors and your quibbling about a participation trophy commissioned in 1914 confirms it.

Yet you are providing yours. No one is defending the institution of slavery however some of us are intellectually honest enough to not judge past generations based on todays's circumstances.

You can't both sides slavery. This isn't about judging past people with past actions, this is about today people glorifying past, systemic, engrained human rights injustices under the patently transparent guise of "respecting the culture" of a bunch of traitors.

Nobody is glorifying anything. Simply stating historical fact. You don't seem very knowledgeable of the issue but that is not surprising. It's part of history and callling those that fought for the south traitors is most certainly judging the past based on today's views and ignores the realities of that time.

(10-30-2023 10:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

Well, the first black president was half white and a socialist who hid his Muslim inclinations and a lot of other things, and it had nothing to do with the Civil War. Slavery was an abomination, but the issue was a sideline in the war, which was commercial in nature with northern textile companies pissed about the sale of cotton to England. England did what Empires do, they claimed to hate slavery, but used slave labor for cheaper raw materials. You know like Biden and the corporatists do with China today, and India, and the Philippines, and Indonesia, etc, etc, etc.

Slavery wasn't a sideline of the war. Without it, the southern plantation owners couldn't grow and harvest crops on the scale they were able to. How that would have affected the cash crops is difficult to say, but the cost of inputs to plant, grow and harvest crops would have been higher. It could have forced the south to pursue other economic growth opportunities - maybe even industrializing.

Let's fight about it! I'm about ready. Seriously Miko you can't be obtuse to the fact that Northern Textile plants wanted that cotton. They were just pissed the South was selling it to England and using cheap labor which was what the Northern mills couldn't overcome. You say slavery was central, I say economics were. Yankees just adopted the free the slaves' position, which by the way many Northerners didn't want to do, because it was a better moral high ground to take than profits and raw materials. The Abolitionists are the ones who should take the bow for freeing the slaves. They married the war to the cause and put their actions to their words. The North used Irish immigrants and then Freedmen to fill the ranks for the war. It was plenty ugly on both sides and none uglier than Lincoln's assassination and the unresolved cloud that hung in the air over that. Andersonville and Elmyra were both disgraces. My great grandmother lost her uncle at Elmyra. I read some of his letters to his family. They were saved and passed down. The vast majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and the South had a share of Irish immigrants as well. Then the whole Kansas / Missouri border war was essentially gang warfare. No slaves there either.

All I'll say is that the abolitionists were the only moral high ground in the war and how our country could claim to be a Republic with all rights held in common and condone slavery was a policy in conflict with practice. It had to go and I'm glad it did.

But my friend slavery in 2023 is only a issue with children who are trafficked and that needs to be abolished, and the rise of antisemitism in the form of a new fascism is the issue we need to deal with now. This country should not abide fascism among us anymore than it should have ever been able to abide slavery.

I tend to find that people want to dig up past sins when they don't want to admit current ones.

(10-30-2023 08:10 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:59 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:37 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 03:57 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Read Lincoln''s thoughts on the topic

Read Lincoln's actions on the topic.

Yep, the ONLY reason for the Emacipation Proclamation was to keep European powers from joining up with the South. Lincoln's official position on slavery was:

Quote: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.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliant political move, but that's what it was, pure political maneuvering.

And the 13th amendment?

Was only pushed thru once the wars outcome was no longer in doubt. Does not change the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued to keep Europe on the sidelines and if memory serves correct only applied to slaves held in the Confederacy.

Well it was already done. The parts of the South that were exempted had passed constitutions that outlawed slavery. Missouri and Maryland and DC had outlawed slavery during the war. The only places it still existed were a small population in Delaware, a few old slaves in New Jersey where it was being phased out and Kentucky.

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

I don't agree with Bear Catlett, but at least he's intellectually honest about it.
Yours is just a stupid take. You can't handle the truth. Speaking the truth has nothing to do with the obnoxious #44.

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:10 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:59 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:37 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Read Lincoln's actions on the topic.

Yep, the ONLY reason for the Emacipation Proclamation was to keep European powers from joining up with the South. Lincoln's official position on slavery was:

Quote: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.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliant political move, but that's what it was, pure political maneuvering.

And the 13th amendment?

Was only pushed thru once the wars outcome was no longer in doubt. Does not change the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued to keep Europe on the sidelines and if memory serves correct only applied to slaves held in the Confederacy.

Well it was already done. The parts of the South that were exempted had passed constitutions that outlawed slavery. Missouri and Maryland and DC had outlawed slavery during the war. The only places it still existed were a small population in Delaware, a few old slaves in New Jersey where it was being phased out and Kentucky.

Dont present facts. That confuses them.

If some of the dimwit filth acutally learn a little real history i believe R E Lee would consider it a fair trade for melting s statue.

(10-30-2023 11:14 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:10 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:59 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Yep, the ONLY reason for the Emacipation Proclamation was to keep European powers from joining up with the South. Lincoln's official position on slavery was:

The Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliant political move, but that's what it was, pure political maneuvering.

And the 13th amendment?

Was only pushed thru once the wars outcome was no longer in doubt. Does not change the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued to keep Europe on the sidelines and if memory serves correct only applied to slaves held in the Confederacy.

Well it was already done. The parts of the South that were exempted had passed constitutions that outlawed slavery. Missouri and Maryland and DC had outlawed slavery during the war. The only places it still existed were a small population in Delaware, a few old slaves in New Jersey where it was being phased out and Kentucky.

Dont present facts. That confuses them.

If some of the dimwit filth acutally learn a little real history i believe R E Lee would consider it a fair trade for melting s statue.

It reminds me of the silence of one prominent Northern poster on the sports board who was lambasting the South for racism when towns and small cities in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and I'm sure other states had sundown laws on the books and enforced in the early to mid 60's when I lived among them. The Air Force and Army would grant transfers upon request to African American Airmen and Soldiers who were randomly stationed in one of those locales. Not for you but the uninitiated younguns, Sundown laws declared no blacks inside the city limits after sunset.

The last bussing riots were in Pontiac and Boston in the early 70's, when the South had it done by '68.

And in corporate life many African Americans preferred the South where they said they could spot a racist as opposed to life in the Northern cities where glass ceilings stopped their advancement without explanation, and they never knew their enemy.

I lived in or traveled to 47 of the 48 states and there was racism in all of them. In some places against native Americans, in some against Hispanics, in some out west against Asian Americans, and in the Northeast and Southeast African Americans but also Puerto Ricans in the Northeast. Racism is innate to the human condition and is selective against whatever group is perceived as the threat. It's not about skin color so much as it is which group threatens employment, though crime is a factor as well. In short, people pick their prejudices. And by the way for many decades in this country until the 50's, the Ku Klux Klan was centered in the North and was very active in Ohio and Indiana. It started with Nathan Bedford Forrest and was used against carpetbaggers and other reconstruction flimflam, then spread over the decades to be more overtly racist, then antisemitic and anti-Catholic, then against foreigners in general, and then around the 30s it became targeted against blacks in the South in a more vicious way culminating in the 50s and 60s as mob force was focused in the South as a bully tactic to enforce segregation and deny voting rights. But my fellow posters it is alive and well in all corners of the country depending upon which area and which ethnicity.

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

Well, the first black president was half white and a socialist who hid his Muslim inclinations and a lot of other things, and it had nothing to do with the Civil War. Slavery was an abomination, but the issue was a sideline in the war, which was commercial in nature with northern textile companies pissed about the sale of cotton to England. England did what Empires do, they claimed to hate slavery, but used slave labor for cheaper raw materials. You know like Biden and the corporatists do with China today, and India, and the Philippines, and Indonesia, etc, etc, etc.

Slavery wasn't a sideline of the war. Without it, the southern plantation owners couldn't grow and harvest crops on the scale they were able to. How that would have affected the cash crops is difficult to say, but the cost of inputs to plant, grow and harvest crops would have been higher. It could have forced the south to pursue other economic growth opportunities - maybe even industrializing.

Let's fight about it! I'm about ready. Seriously Miko you can't be obtuse to the fact that Northern Textile plants wanted that cotton. They were just pissed the South was selling it to England and using cheap labor which was what the Northern mills couldn't overcome. You say slavery was central, I say economics were. Yankees just adopted the free the slaves' position, which by the way many Northerners didn't want to do, because it was a better moral high ground to take than profits and raw materials. The Abolitionists are the ones who should take the bow for freeing the slaves. They married the war to the cause and put their actions to their words. The North used Irish immigrants and then Freedmen to fill the ranks for the war. It was plenty ugly on both sides and none uglier than Lincoln's assassination and the unresolved cloud that hung in the air over that. Andersonville and Elmyra were both disgraces. My great grandmother lost her uncle at Elmyra. I read some of his letters to his family. They were saved and passed down. The vast majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and the South had a share of Irish immigrants as well. Then the whole Kansas / Missouri border war was essentially gang warfare. No slaves there either.

All I'll say is that the abolitionists were the only moral high ground in the war and how our country could claim to be a Republic with all rights held in common and condone slavery was a policy in conflict with practice. It had to go and I'm glad it did.

But my friend slavery in 2023 is only a issue with children who are trafficked and that needs to be abolished, and the rise of antisemitism in the form of a new fascism is the issue we need to deal with now. This country should not abide fascism among us anymore than it should have ever been able to abide slavery.

I tend to find that people want to dig up past sins when they don't want to admit current ones.

I agree that economics are the ultimate root cause of virtually all wars. The issue with economics within this context is without slavery, would cotton, tobacco, etc become the cash crops they were at that time? Also consider the voting power of the 2 primary blocks represented in congress and the WH: Northern Industrialists and Southern Plantation Farmers. The SPF had the representatives in the slave states who would vote their interests while the NI had their interests voted in the affirmative by the free states. Slave states had a labor advantage over the free states wrt costs. Aside from being the literal labor force that made plantation life possible for the landed elite in the south, slavery provided political clout to the states who could use the senate to thwart any laws enacted that would otherwise be passed by the house due to the higher population centers in the north.

Slavery made the southern economies possible. Slavery helped keep political power largely equal to minimize northern states growing power thru population growth. I stated in an earlier comment that while there were more than one cause, those causes were NOT mutually exclusive. Ultimately everything springboards off of slavery because it's what gave power to the southern elites - literally in the Federal gov't thru the senators and representatives of the states whose economies were focused on agriculture.

(10-30-2023 11:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 08:29 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's threads like these that make it very clear just how badly a black president broke y'all.

No amount of revisionist history or rose-colored nostalgia changes the fact that the Confederates seceded from the Union, causing the bloodiest war in American history, all because of slavery. If you still support the confederacy, do the rest of us a favor and give up your citizenship to one of those "illegals" you all despise. We'll be better off.

Well, the first black president was half white and a socialist who hid his Muslim inclinations and a lot of other things, and it had nothing to do with the Civil War. Slavery was an abomination, but the issue was a sideline in the war, which was commercial in nature with northern textile companies pissed about the sale of cotton to England. England did what Empires do, they claimed to hate slavery, but used slave labor for cheaper raw materials. You know like Biden and the corporatists do with China today, and India, and the Philippines, and Indonesia, etc, etc, etc.

Slavery wasn't a sideline of the war. Without it, the southern plantation owners couldn't grow and harvest crops on the scale they were able to. How that would have affected the cash crops is difficult to say, but the cost of inputs to plant, grow and harvest crops would have been higher. It could have forced the south to pursue other economic growth opportunities - maybe even industrializing.

Let's fight about it! I'm about ready. Seriously Miko you can't be obtuse to the fact that Northern Textile plants wanted that cotton. They were just pissed the South was selling it to England and using cheap labor which was what the Northern mills couldn't overcome. You say slavery was central, I say economics were. Yankees just adopted the free the slaves' position, which by the way many Northerners didn't want to do, because it was a better moral high ground to take than profits and raw materials. The Abolitionists are the ones who should take the bow for freeing the slaves. They married the war to the cause and put their actions to their words. The North used Irish immigrants and then Freedmen to fill the ranks for the war. It was plenty ugly on both sides and none uglier than Lincoln's assassination and the unresolved cloud that hung in the air over that. Andersonville and Elmyra were both disgraces. My great grandmother lost her uncle at Elmyra. I read some of his letters to his family. They were saved and passed down. The vast majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and the South had a share of Irish immigrants as well. Then the whole Kansas / Missouri border war was essentially gang warfare. No slaves there either.

All I'll say is that the abolitionists were the only moral high ground in the war and how our country could claim to be a Republic with all rights held in common and condone slavery was a policy in conflict with practice. It had to go and I'm glad it did.

But my friend slavery in 2023 is only a issue with children who are trafficked and that needs to be abolished, and the rise of antisemitism in the form of a new fascism is the issue we need to deal with now. This country should not abide fascism among us anymore than it should have ever been able to abide slavery.

I tend to find that people want to dig up past sins when they don't want to admit current ones.

I agree that economics are the ultimate root cause of virtually all wars. The issue with economics within this context is without slavery, would cotton, tobacco, etc become the cash crops they were at that time? Also consider the voting power of the 2 primary blocks represented in congress and the WH: Northern Industrialists and Southern Plantation Farmers. The SPF had the representatives in the slave states who would vote their interests while the NI had their interests voted in the affirmative by the free states. Slave states had a labor advantage over the free states wrt costs. Aside from being the literal labor force that made plantation life possible for the landed elite in the south, slavery provided political clout to the states who could use the senate to thwart any laws enacted that would otherwise be passed by the house due to the higher population centers in the north.

Slavery made the southern economies possible. Slavery helped keep political power largely equal to minimize northern states growing power thru population growth. I stated in an earlier comment that while there were more than one cause, those causes were NOT mutually exclusive. Ultimately everything springboards off of slavery because it's what gave power to the southern elites - literally in the Federal gov't thru the senators and representatives of the states whose economies were focused on agriculture.

And the various perspectives are precisely why secession happened and Ft. Sumter was fired upon. Perspective confounds reconciliation. That's why I said I'm ready.