It is proof that every advantage that the South had had politically was absolutely destroyed by Politics and Regionalism, and the North was kicking them in the Teeth, the North was afraid that Expansion in the West, would restore power to slave holders who would then turn attention to expand businesses into an invasion in the North. Until after the war, no Federal law, forbade Slavery In the North. And would have been Questionable as to the Constitutionality of the Law. Again slavery time and again was brought up by Northern delegates, such as the North position, Slaves were mere property. South wanted them counted, so compromise was the slave population was a fraction of a vote. Then over property and interstate commerce and transportation.

The North hit the South with heavy tariffs, The Population density and the wealth in the North, soon created, crisis over property rights, namely the Dred Scott decision created a severe backlash against the South. And then when things seemed like they could not get any worse the Republican Party formed, with their anti slavery in the West. And when the War goes bad for the North and the North begins using a draft, and Copperheads and Northern Democrats real active, Lincoln needs something to unite the Abolitionist support, and more support for the War by the Industrialists, jumped on the bandwagon, after the bloody Draw at Antietam and the North claimed a Victory, because of the huge losses and being so far from supply lines Lee had to retreat. The South claimed a victory because they had successfully invaded the North, sending a message they were not safe North of the Mason Dixon line, and that Lee’s Army was still a huge threat to the North. All the sudden the Peace Societies and the abolitionists became very active in the South, as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation just as Lincoln and Republicans hoped it would. The information proves that know matter what the Slavery issue time and again is attached by the North to legislation that did not have any direct connection to Slavery, and they would bring up the Slavery issue. They were trying to keep the French and British from getting involved with the Confederacy, because of Slavery. Again it was the Achille’s Heel of the South.

Time and again the issue is used by the North as a Weapon. That is why I made the Statement “It had nothing to do with Slavery/it had everything to do with the War. The attitude and newspaper articles were just a great example of the use of Media against the South.

They made it all about Slavery and stirring up rabid and unyielding radical thinking. They would not be happy until slavery was destroyed. The people who claim that the War waged by the North was a Great Moral crusade to rid the National Sin of Slavery, are in denial and trying to pass the blame, and our just as Rabid and Dangerous of the Myth of the Lost Cause. Both views are opposite and extreme of the actual truth. Both have validity, but have been stretched and weaponized to us to wage political war.
They also view States rights as a myth, and view it as the South thinking each State had a
Right to have Slaves. The Truth is States Rights was about the Constitutionality of being able to secede from the Union. During the War of 1812, some New England States were going to secede from the Union over the Economic disaster the war was having. Confederate States believed that the not only had the right but the obligation to secede and that the New Englanders were a bunch of self serving Hypocrites. Which happens to be my opinion as well. The North view is the Confederate States had no right to secede. It just happens to be that the constant attack of slavery against a clear Constitutional right, was the reason the chose to secede. Northern Moral Crusader myth holders, mistakenly cling to the fallacy States rights were about Slavery.

They think that because of all the arguments about Slavery, where the South decided it had enough, the South collectively decided that they were already two separate nations, chose to withdraw from the Union, and there is a lot of Merit to the South’s legal claim, the Constitution did not strictly forbid it, nor was there anything that would allow the Union, to legally enforce it if they did.

Again, Slavery, then, and now, it is being used as a political weapon, and an area of Division. I have read all the Arguments, and yes today, there are Constitutional and Federal laws that forbid it, and people now try to use very vague and unrelated areas of the Constitution to claim South was Illegal. From where I stand the blood of the War and the sin of slavery is on every politicians hands of the day. Both sides were absolutely wrong. They looked at what was best for their region and their party instead of looking out for what was best for the entire Nation.

There are many sources, that if it is all that is accepted as valid evidence, that logically can be used to support The claim that Slavery caused the War. It is in error, but there is a lot of biased evidence and articles. Those of the North Crusader myth, they reject all resources counter to their view of a Moral crusade, and they label and reject those sources as being “Another Lost Cause myth. In just looking at the Confederate Constitution, and the Articles of Secession from the Confederate states, there is significant evidence to support the claim it was all about Slavery. There are a lot of quotes, from people like Fredrick Douglas, some of the Northern Politicians of the day, and of course the Media of the day trying to sway political persuasions, are used to support it.

That is why all sides, views, and information must be sifted through. North and South have sources the other side views as being invalid, and they ignore or discount completely because it is opposite of what they believe. So the North discounts “The Lost Cause” completely. And those of the Southern view, who at risk being considered racist and lost causers because we do not by the Northern Myth that North were great Moral crusaders bent on removing the National Moral
Sin, will completely discount and ignore the fact, of the role that slavery did play a huge role in the Cause of the US Civil War.

I still have a lot in the one book, to present supporting my opinion. I think both extreme views are inaccurate, and can be used as political weapons. History should
Be history and about the facts, not the politics of today. Slavery did have everything to do with the War.

However, the Union started the War to preserve the Union, it was
Not in the beginning a Moral crusade to end Slavery, nor was it ever waged, on the National Level, as a crusade to destroy slavery. It was fought to contain it. The Great Emancipator, used it as a political tool to bolster the Union. It was effective. Newspapers, and politicians and businessmen once opposed to the War jumped on board. A lot of men volunteered to serve in the Union Army because of the appearance of fighting in a crusade to end slavery. Yes there were individual soldiers, who fought a personal crusade to fight against slavery.

But it was never a National Campaign as the Myth and current pervasive view of liberal historians. By the Same token, there were many a Southern Planter and slave holder, who formed their own units to wage War for Keeping Slavery intact. The Actual Confederate Government and collective views of the States, was to build the Same Style of Government and lifestyle of the old Republic in the new Southern Nation. They viewed the Nation to have already been divided into two nations already, they just wanted to make it official. They were tired of fighting the North over slavery They viewed Slavery as an absolute necessity to maintain their way of life, they felt could only be maintained by having slaves.

I want the facts, truth and balance restored to history, and get the 21st century sociopolitical, liberal view point rolled back. No room for
Liberal vs Conservative, No Democrat vs Republican, Socialism vs Capitalist. The only political viewpoints should be a historical study of the political views of the people of the era. Not what we think or believe the only bearing should be what they believed at the time, to understand why the believed and felt the way they did, and to assess how and why those viewpoints resulted into the war, and how it affected the conduct of the war.
Both sides need to try and view the war through the eyes of our opposite perspectives, so we can gain an understanding and appreciation of their viewpoint, look at the validity, and determine then if it is valid, or were they victims of political
Manipulation. Should be no name calling or labeling. Using a grain of salt, cautiously and respectfully challenging view points is how we learn, and able to use history. History by itself is just a bunch of useless trivia, if it is not applicable to today, it is very dangerous if it is a weaponized political tool. By studying the patterns of the past, awe can use it to analyze the patterns of the present, and hopefully provide us with the insight to avoid the same mistakes of the Nation during the Civil War era. The US Army still studies the Civil War battles, to analyze what was done wrong, what was done right, a view and understanding of leadership styles, in order to make student officers and noncommissioned officers more knowledgeable and professional, so they can apply that Knowledge.

Civil War History should not be about tearing down statues, or getting a certain political party in power, it should be about learning from their example from making the
Same mistakes they did. The purpose should be to avoid another Civil War, not continue to use Slavery and trigger a new Civil War. The passions and the views in history is now becoming as polarized as today’s politics. The common bond of history, and developing a useful and practical application, should put us all on the same page, and the same point of view. Should
Not matter where a historian lives, where they were educated, political party affiliation, religion, race/color, or gender. We should be checking our passions and preconceived views, and analyze the facts together.
That is one thing I truly appreciate about this Civil War Board, we are all trying to do that. There are several sites, I no longer visit, because it is a political debate and the validity of the opposite sides is questioned and the battles erupt again. George, I truly appreciate you and your questioning me and seeking clarification. I think we are both on the same side, just slightly different perspective.

People who state that Robert E Lee was a traitor, and a
Horrible man because he owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy, does not know History, or understand the Differences of Loyalty in the North and the South. Traditionally the Northern perspective is that loyalty to the United States is foremost, and it is disloyal to support their States. In the South especially in Virginia and the States that were part of the original 13 colonies, loyalty, and authority was first and belonged to the States. They believed in a very narrow and rigid interpretation of the Constitution. The North believed that the Federal Government and the Union surpasses the States, and loyalty is to the US and only to the State in context of the Constitution, and they believed in a broad application of the Constitution. They believed that if not spelled out as
Being a State power or authority, it belongs to the Federal government. The South view is anything not spelled out in the Constitution as a
Federal power, then it belongs to the States.
Unfortunately this debate continues today, and it is very evident in the previous and the current Presidential Administrations. I happen to adhere as a general rule to the Southern perspective. And I also agree with Robert E Lee’s decision for his loyalty to go with his State. However, I can understand and appreciate the differences in opinion, and is a case of we will have to agree to disagree. Who is actually right. What would
Make the Northern perspective to be correct, what would
Make the Southern perspective is right. My best guess, it depends on your zip code. If you live in New Jersey, the Northern perspective is correct. If you live in Arkansas I would say The Southern perspective. When your an Arkansan in New Jersey, or a New Jersey Native in Arkansas. I would say in that case, each of their viewpoints is wrong, because of the zip code. When the two get into conflict, it is work it out.