Yuku free message boards

The chronology is correct, but it doesn't prove anything.
The South may have not seceded because Lincoln freed the slaves, but they did because they feared that the institution of slavery was threatened by his election in 1861. That's why he was called a "Black Republican" in the South.
The same fears caused them to reject "Popular Sovereignty" in the 1850s, which would have banned slavery in any new territories. Ironically enough, to protect slavery in effect they even rejected their banner cause of "States Rights" by rejecting Popular Sovereignty.
The same fears almost caused their ancestors to wreck the American Revolution. If we want to add to the chronology we can keep in mind that they had even been willing to break ties with the other colonies over the issue in 1776.
And it is true that preserving the Union not dealing with slavery was the paramount concern early in the war, but the Emancipation Proclamation rejuvenated the struggle in the north, support of which had began to wane by that point.
And, if we are to adjust the focus a little more the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the states in rebellion. Chattel Slavery was not abolished in the U.S. until the 13th Amendment was passed in December, 1865.
To many, many, many white people in the South, non-slave owners more so than even slave owners, the "Peculiar Institution" was the "Beloved Institution" that protected them and their familes from "Nat-Turner like" slave revolts. Slave revolts had been feared in the South for almost two centuries and even more so since the early 1800s. That was never more so than to the non-slave owning Confederate soldier who relied on the Institution to protect his family while he was away fighting "Northern Aggression."

The American Civil War, or what ever one may term it (war of the rebellion, war of northern aggression etc.) is a very complicated issue. Much more complicated than what we all learned in school.
TexasEd

Thor96 wrote:

---

How about apologizing to me for apologizing on my behalf for something I was not remotely involved or responsible for.

---

Would you call that Apologation without representation? I'm not apologizing.

That's quite funny Thor96. But since its those blowhards in the Senate and soon in Congress doing it on our behalf, how about "Apologation with mis-representation."
TexasEd