Finding Neverland

The Civil War or the "War Between The States" as it was called until WW1 was primarily fought over States rights vs. Federal rights and which law superseded the other. None of the soldiers or generals were fighting to free or keep slaves. President Lincoln himself said his intention is not to free slaves and slavery as an issue wasn't even brought up until 2 years into the war, mainly as a recruitment tactic because the war was very unpopular in the northern "Union" states and the Union army couldn't recruit enough soldiers. The U.S. Constitution provides for states to succeed from the Union but when the southern "Confederacy" tries, Lincoln fought to prevent. As many actual American historians have states, understanding of what people were fighting for and what was being challenged both politically and individually is critical to understanding America as a culture today (speaking of personal freedoms, liberties and form of government)

"States Rights" do to what? It was a specific thing. Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens gave a whole speech on that specific thing. Multiple declarations of succession mentioned that one specific thing as the reason they were splitting off.

In fact, it's the same thing that Confederate General Robert E Lee had been in court to keep doing despite the clear instructions of the will of his father in law.

Lincoln didn't start off intent on freeing the slaves. The Southern states knew it was going to happen because the abolitionist party was able to win the presidential election without their support.

They knew what was coming.

It was 100% about the "states rights" to own slaves.

It was a bunch of states rights. I just want to note that slavery is a despicable practice and it should never have been started in the first place. Slavery wasn't even the issue. It was about what happened economically after the slaves were freed. Suddenly the price of cotton and tobacco would reach astronomical prices causing the price of clothing to skyrocket. It would have caused a huge economic shock that would have caused a depression. Good thing we had a war and depopulated or it would have been an economic disaster.
The right way to go about it wound have been to have the government purchase them and then free them. It was already on the books that no more new slaves could be purchased only existing slaves could be owned. The purchase would have given the farmers enough buffer capital that they could replace their workforce and cause more gradual price increases.

It's weird that you start off by saying slavery was bad but then spend a whole paragraph defending it because it would have made prices go up.

And the war was 100% about the right to own slaves. They said it explicitly in the Cornerstone Speech and their documents of succession.

No, I didn't defend it at all. I proposed a better way to end it. Please learn to read.

Nope. It was about states rights. You can't base a war on a single speech. Look at all the other speeches about it.

The history lessons given, whether right or wrong, get off the intention of the meme; namely that the thousands of young and old people at the Lefts beck and call, have been led astray by the propaganda of the Democrats

Amateur Civil War historian here... The 2% number is kinda sorta correct but the reason the confederate states seceded is still the preservation of slavery, there was no lost cause, it was not about states rights(except the right to OWN PEOPLE), and it was not about taxes. I know a Lost-Causer when I see one and I present to you a snippet of Cornerstone Speech given by the Confederate Vice President:
" The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”2

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Just want to make sure that you don't go down the path that the Civil War was not about slavery

I think you meant to say "redditor here". Abe Lincoln tried to make slavery a permanent institution prior to the civil war himself, and he married the daughter of one of Kentucky's most Prodigious slave owners.

Sure, claiming the Confederacy were Democrats? Like stating Maga is liberal.
Erasing historic fact with right wing disinformation. Now, that's gaslighting.

To deny the confederacy was democrat is absurd. To deny that pro-slavery was a democrat position is absurd. To deny the democrats didn't keep that plantation attitude is absurd.

They were conservatives not liberals like democrats today

Democrats today are either knowingly Marxist or unknowing pawns

To compare the Confederacy to modern day Democrats is absurd.
Republicans used to care about the Constitution, States rights, small government, a balanced budget. Now, maga only cares about a man. It's a cult. And in no way represents the Party of Ronald Reagan.
The Democrats of the Confederacy are in line with Trump maga ideology, not Democratic liberalism.

Can NASA astronauts reach the planet you live on? Because it's certainly not the place the rest of us inhabit.
But I'll indulge your fantasy. What part of maga has slaves? Unlike the democrats who brought in 20 million of them hoping that putting them on the plantation will make them vote for libs.
As trump said in his first term the goal of every country's leadership is to put their best interests first- that's maga. Anything else is icing.

Everything Abe Lincoln did during the civil war?would be considered 'woke' by maga standards today.
So if the Confederacy had the name 'Democrat'?
It was opposite of what Democrats are today.

It's why maga waves Confederate flags and loves to cry when a confederate statue gets taken down.
Maga espouses the same beliefs.

Fos. What Abe did in the civil war would have the left crying tyrant! Oh wait, they did all over the south! Yes the confederacy had the name democrat, that was the party of slavery and insurrection. Oh wait, they still are. A couple of people wave a confederate flag and you want to label maga with it. You ignore that the entire confederacy and their democrat leaders invented it. Maga doesn't want history torn down or forgotten, remember the left tore down statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Martin Luther King.

Nope. You're either purposely deflecting, or unable to comprehend the reality of what is true.

You wouldn't recognize reality if it bit you, which it might someday

You wish.

You make it seem like it was some weird side-hustle on Etsy when slavery was the entire foundation of the southern economy. At its peak, right before the civil war, the south was supplying 78% of the world's cotton.

The whole world's cotton.

They weren't duped into something. They knew what they were fighting for the whole time.

. . .
. .
.
I'm just gonna replace 'cotton' with 'soy beans'. . .

Which the north was also disproportionately profiting from while having a disproportionately larger population, hence the existence of carpetbaggers and the reason certain southerners relied so heavily on slave labour.

Meanwhile, Democrats today continue to lament the deportations of illegal immigrants because, wait for it, they pick crops.

For low pay. 🤡🌍

oh, you're getting soooo close to realizing it.

That Abraham Lincoln actually initiated the civil war because he didn't want to relinquish 78% of the world's cotton supply to a foreign nation?

Who started the war?

Also, you're slipping way- yes, the north and everyone profited from the slave labor harvesting all the cotton in the south. Everyone from the people who owned them to the last person to buy the shirt or whatever profited from that cheap labor.

Just like how we profit from cheap labor harvesting our food.

The North started the war, objectively speaking. The Confederate states had the constitutional right to secede. The Union states objected to them choosing to do so, and attacked them for it.

With so much change that happened post Civil War, the South and Dems should be glad they lost. If they had seceded they would've turned into a third world crap hole. Slavery was on the outs all over the world as things like assembly line manufacturing became more common and more people went from 'serfs' or whatever to working for private businesses.

Besides the moral failing of slavery, it's also a failure in terms of economics and innovation. Heck, it's even worse than communism. At least the Soviet Union made an attempt at a workable space program. A slave based economy like the South wanted. . .I can't think of any innovation that came from it.

What white supremacist "the south will rise again" gaslighting history class did you take?

Can you point to when the "north objectively speaking" started the war?

Then please point to the part of the Constitution that allows a state to leave the union.

I've adopted a policy of not obliging requests from people who can't initiate conversation with a modicum of respect.

That was being respectful. Because whomever told you that the north 'objectively' started the war and that the Constitution allows for a state to leave the union was a white supremacist who was gaslighting you.

Not being respectful would have been to personally attack you, call you names, etc.

So... prove them right. Should be easy enough.