Yeah right. Lincoln's address didn't prove that he didn't care about slavery and I never said any such thing. Everything in your comment is WEIRD. Also I never once said that slavery wasn't profitable. As far as ending slavery without a war, I don't know, maybe war was inevitable in this particular case. But my whole thesis in posting is that war should be a very last solution.

Not just brothels.

http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cn...rough-slavery/

Some didn't. They didn't need to fight either.

I think when they start an army and attack federal bases to ensure the preservation of slavery it's a good point to say punishment is deserved whether they owned slaves or not. But, unless I'm mistaken here, your position seems to be that even the guy who just ran the auctions is in the clear. He didn't own slaves. The cashier at the auctions? The bank that knowingly takes the transactions? The lawyers that help people get out of human traffic charges today? IT's all good because they didn't actually own people.

Every person who directly facilitated slavery in a knowing and malicious manner should be punished one way or the other. But to say that a southerner protecting his homeland is automatically pronounced a slave facilitator is the same as your Bush imperative regarding the war on "Terror" (sic).

protecting his homeland lol

really? But I just received my very first all time infraction from Mr. Wookie, so I will no longer chat on this particular thread. I've enjoyed the conversation. thanks

Yes. The idea that the non-slave owners were just fighting to preserve their homeland is lol. Unless you actually mean they were defending the culture of their homeland in which we are back to them supporting slavery or the rights of other people to own slaves.

It isn't too far fetched that some combatants for the South were fighting for other reasons besides slavery. Slave owners were probably the minority in actual combatants.

Sure some may have been fighting for other reasons but the majority that fought knew well enough that the reason for the war was because they seceded for reasons involving slavery and the preservation of it.

Like, if they hate slavery and are mad at the north for coming down and bustin' heads why are they fighting along side the slave owners who caused the north to have to come down and bust heads in the first place?

You are kind of being absurd in the assumption that all rebels fought the Civil War because of slavery. I am pretty sure that at least 70% of the confederate soldiers probably could not afford to own slaves. And they were fighting out of nationalistic causes and such.

I am definitely on the side of the North. But proclaiming everyone of equal guilt for slavery is like saying all Germans had a hand in the holocaust.

OK. I already said some rebels may have gotten in for other reasons but the majority had to have supported the idea of slavery. So what are some reasons these people who supposedly didn't support slavery would have joined slave owners to fight together in a war to preserve slavery?

You could have not owned slaves but still been afraid of a society where black people were free. Nationalism and anti-north bigotry obv played a part, but just because you didn't own slaves doesn't mean you could not have been willing to fight to preserve it. (And 70% seems way too low)

Well we know the traitorous CSA leaders were fighting to preserve slavery, and so did those who enlisted under them. True, some of those enlistees might have had other motives... including just having a jerb.

And we know that the leaders of the USA were fighting to but down a traitorous rebellion. And what is definitely true is that a whole lotta the enlistees that fought under them had one particular other motive... abolition.

I'm going to guess this (without any proof)...

USA enlistees fighting to end slavery >>>>>>>>> anti-slavery CSA enlistees

But they didn't actually own them.

Convincing the peons to fight a war that doesn't serve their interests is very easy (see Iraq). When you add conscription to it, it becomes even easier.

I have no doubt not all southern rebels thought owning slaves was a great idea. But if they think owning slaves is a bad idea and don't want to fight for it they shouldn't rebel.

What if they wanted to rebel for other reasons that were more important to them than slavery?

Right, so it doesn't matter that the peons couldn't own slaves. What matters is why the elites who decide to make the peons fight want a war. And preservation of slavery is very high on the list.

How so?

Sad day for them. They should make better decisions.

But who would possibly be dumb enough to think that the war wasn't about slavery?

Fair enough.

Lolz...

Has anyone definitively ruled that fat angry guy being Chris Christie?

So let's generalize our libertarians and/or neo-confederates premise here.

Let's consider mainland China's successful secession from the Republic of China circa 1949. Do our L a/o NC's consider this a righteous event? I mean after all, two de-facto, and to this day alternately recognized as legitimate, nation-states were created out of one... that's a good thing to libertarians, amirite?

Seriously, Mao and friends are the equivalent of J.Davis and friends? Amirite?

Do our L a/o NC's consider that as soon as Mao & friends declared war is exactly the same as when J.Davis & friends initiated the war of southern aggression? As soon as J.Davis and friends unilaterally declared war on the USA, all USA military bases in southern USA became magically "foreign occupation" and that was used as a justification to violently assault them... in the same exact way that when Mao & friends declared war, magically all the military bases of the Republic of China's became "foreign occupation" and that was also a justification to violently assault the Republic of China?

And next up for our L a/o NC friends... William Walker and the Republic of Lower California, and his later filibusters.

The same as the difference between West Germany and East Germany in 1960.