What is with history revisionists Republicans and the American Civil War?

@MasterLee If you think that slavery was not an issue prior to the Civil War you need to look at your history. Does the name John Brown ring any bells? Abolition was an major issue before the election of 1860. The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 come to mind.

@MasterLee read the articles of succession for every confederate state and southern newspaper editorials before the war and then get back to us - pretty sure that won't happen

@Justme22 it was an issue but not the primary reason for the Civil war. Lincoln was putting pressure.

@MasterLee Said like some one who believes the Lost Cause version of history regarding the Civil War.

@MasterLee wrong - states rights meant the right to maintain slavery and spread it west - name another "right"

@tindrummer qhy? So you can masturbate to it?

Use the tools you have and find the answers. I am too busy at the moment to do your homework.

@MasterLee ROTFLMAO......@U!!!!!!

@MasterLee 😅 thought so - your standard answer when you don't have one

@tindrummer I do just want you to do your own research.

@MasterLee did it half a century ago at the U of Texas and in a few books since
you made a claim and refuse to look at the sources I gave you so you've obviously got zip
you're just embarrassing yourself

@MasterLee slavery was an issue long before the civil war.
Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned slavery and would have abolished it. However that clause was removed before it was signed. Jefferson later blamed two southern states for not going along with it, but also said the northern states weren't terribly keen to fight to keep it in. Jefferson didn't want to lose it. He saw the hypocrisy of a nation of slaves and a Declaration that said 'all men are created equal ' .

@MasterLee Well, actually the Republican Party was founded largely by abolitionists who felt neither of the leading parties of the time were adequately addressing the slavery issue. It rose to prominence when Senator Douglas wrote the Kansas-Nebraska Act to overturn the Missouri Compromise, and allow the residents of the new states of Kansas and Nebraska to choose being slave or non-slave -- the true meaning of States Rights, and Lincoln challenged him to a series of debates leading up to the Senatorial elections. At the same time, the Supreme Court made its Dred Scott decision which sort of made the whole issue moot, claiming that slaves remained the property of their owners regardless of slave state or non-slave state. Both of these Congressional Acts, the Dred Scott decision, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates for the U.S. Senate all predate secession and Ft. Sumter.

No matter how you want to frame it, the bottom line of the Confederate secession and the Civil War is that it was about the inability or unwillingness of Southern plantation owners to envision their economies -- and therefore their lifestyles -- to survive without slave labor. To say slavery didn't become an issue until after the war and blame Lincoln for it because of the Emancipation Proclamation is totally revisionist garbage.

Lincoln was never a rabid abolitionist; his famous line about a "house divided cannot stand" in the Lincoln-Douglas debates was aimed directly at his over-riding desire to find a way to maintain the Union rather than a zealous desire to abruptly end slavery. And among abolitionists he was in the camp that favored helping them return to Africa rather than incorporating them into the American populace as free people. Even as a wartime President he was hesitant to emancipate the slaves unilaterally, and when finally pressured into doing so only emancipated them in the secessionist states. And his plans for recovery from the Civil War was far more constructive and conciliatory to finding a way to rebuild the Southern economy without slaves than the punitive measures rammed through by his VP and successor, Andrew Johnson, and the Republican Congress.