One cannot argue for principles of liberty and then support secession for the express purpose of continuing slavery.
I have never supported slavery or the government of the south either.
When "one" claims SC didn't start the war--in an attempt make it appear Lincoln started the way--"one" is supporting the government of South Carolina.
it has already been admitted the war wasn't about slavery.
I have readily conceded that Lincoln and the North did not fight initially to end slavery. But SC's own secession document is undeniable proof that the war was "about slavery" for SC. "One" ought to concede this, the eyeroll emoticon is a tiresome, childish, indirect insult by those incapable of maturely and civilly expressing their positions.
Quotes of a southerners who didn't want to start a war, does not mean that the southerners who did fire started the war.
It means those literally on the ground at the moment, recognized that firing the first shot at union property and personnel was the start of the war. Lincoln declining to remove union men and to turn over union property may have been provocative, or may have simply been an assertion of property rights...a right that "some" generally support. But it wasn't the start of the war.
Nor did Lincoln blockade Charleston harbor with warships (or singular ship) prior to SC firing on Fort Sumter as "some" have claimed he did. Citations were provided at which point you claimed a "typo" with regard to ships vs ship. You never were mature enough to concede that no blockade occurred prior to SC firing on Fort Sumter.
Someone may want to look into the history of England, ask themselves what King in the 1600's made statues that set in motion for a case in the 1770's that showed that slavery was not legal in England and when a slave owner brought him there he was freed.
YOU--not "someone", but YOU, SVG, have been asked for citations to back up your claim that slavery was ended in England in the 1600s and thus the American Colonists were fighting to continue slavery. Since you lack the ability or courtesy to follow forum etitiquette to provide the requested citation, let me help you out.
The
Somersett's case to which you allude was decided in 1772 and was very narrowly decided regarding removing a person (slave or otherwise) from England. It was a major event in the English abolition movement, which eventually, affirmative outlawed slavery in most of the English Empire (including England proper) with the
Abolition Act of 1833.
Obviously, had the Somerset case been a definitive end to slavery in England, there would have been far less need for the abolition act of 1833.
The wiki article above notes that "some" historians (an actual "some", not the childish insults used by some as of late on this forum) believe the Somerset decision contributed to the American Revolution. That seems a clear minority position as even some of the leading slave owning southern revolutionaries (ie Jefferson, Washington) struggled with slavery. It seems highly doubtful that they, or their anti-slavery northern counterparts (Adams, Revere) started or waged a brutal 8-year slog in order to continue African Slavery in the colonies.
Notably, you made your claim about the colonies waging the revolution to perpetuate slavery in rebuttal to my claim that the Confederacy had hoped to draw England to their support over England's need for cotton for their textile industry but that the issue of slavery had helped keep England out of the war.
Sudden Valley Gunner, I'm with you when it comes to opposing the false narrative of Lincoln as a great abolitionist or purveyor of freedom. There is no doubt he waged the war to preserve the union. Abolition became a tactical issue to weaken the confederacy and to bolster support for an ever increasingly unpopular war in the North ("...as He died to make men holy let us live to make men free..."). Lincolns use of fiat currency, suspension of habeus corpus and infringement of the freedom of the press, imposition of income tax, and of the draft are all offensive and (with the exception of suspending habeus corpus which can be authorized) clearly unconstitutional. The growth of the federal government and its power relative to the States that came as a result of the War have not generally been good.
But your narrative of Lincoln and the Confederacy is just as full as errors as is that from the public schools to which you objected in starting this thread. And now you're bound and determined not to be wrong on any point including how many warships were sent to Charleston at what time relative to the firing on Fort Sumter. You refuse to address the issue of why SC seceded; You've sidestepped the issue of SC seizing property owned by the union. You've resorted time and again to indirect insults and attacks as you use "some", "one" and "he" to refer to me sideways rather than maturely addressing me directly, or ignoring me if you cannot be civil. You'e refused my requests for citations. Clearly this is all about personality to you. My personality. Lincoln's personality. Factually accurate history is important. You should start with accurate facts, and then work up your narrative, rather than the other way around. And you should learn to discuss the issue civilly, even when "some" disagree with you or present facts that are inconvenient to your narrative.
Charles