What are they teaching our kids !!!!!

[BrianMcCandliss]

When they teach that slavery was one of the main reasons for the W.B.T.S.  they are correct .

That's absurd; the WBTS was fought because the federal government murderously and treacherously violated the Constitutional agreements between the states that each State, in ratifying the Constitution, was considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.(Madison, Federalist 39).

Slavery may have been a reason for seceding-- but it was NOT the reason that the North attacked-- or the South defended!
As such, to say that the WTBS was in any way about slavery, is ridiculously absurd-- not to mention intentionally misleading, if not inexcusably ignorant.

[ironfoot]

"Slavery may have been a reason for seceding-- but it was NOT the reason that the North attacked-- or the South defended!
As such, to say that the WTBS was in any way about slavery, is ridiculously absurd-- not to mention intentionally misleading, if not inexcusably ignorant."

Actually we are close to agreement here.
My view is that the south seceded in an effort to preserve slavery.
The north did not attack to end slavery, but to prevent secession.
But the south's secession was because Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform.
So the war was over slavery.
Lincoln made it clear that the south would not even tolerate critisism of slavery.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

[BrianMcCandliss]

Wrong- the war was fought, because the North attacked-- PERIOD. If the North hadn't attacked, there would have been no war.

Likewise, the North did NOT attack to end slavery; rather, the North attacked in denial of state sovereignty and rights to secede; the South said the states had it, the North said they didn't.

Finally, the North specifically CLAIMED that the war was NOT about slavery- and Lincoln even compared slaves to pigs, in terms of what he cared about them and their welfare.

Therefore, slavery was merely the context of secession-- it had NOTHING to do with the reasons for the war itself, regardless of the reasons for secession.

And since when does secession, necessarily mean war? If both sides had recognized that the states had a legal right to secede, then discussion would have been over-- no war. Period.

The only time secession requires war, is when there IS a denial of such a legal right.

The war was fought over the LEGAL issue of state sovereignty, period.

[S.S.]

My family on my father's side were "NATIVE AMERICANS"
Grandma is a full blooded Cherokee... and YES I have just as strong of emotions for the plight of Native Americans! Family name is "Up The Grove" (Loosely translate) more specifically translated it means "Up The Creek"!  (Not joking).

[S.S.]

Addendum to my last post:
I did not say Hitler Said it first, I simply said
that he said it. (Those who do not remember history
will be forced to repeat it).