Who joined the fight to protect the guy down the road from losing his slaves?
If it was about slavery, seems only slave owners would have been fighting.
And why did Lincoln say he would allow slavery IF he could and save the union?
Seems like that
Emancipation Proclamation would have been included in the first statements if slavery was The issue.

No. It's not. All you need to do is read history about the way D.C.was walking on the south.
And question what we have been taught.
The Reason we were involved in Nam was?
A Lie.
Iraq, WMDS, lie.
Officially sanctioned lies.
Explain why Lincoln said what he said.
If YOU were going to embark on a war and The Central Point was slavery,
Why would you Not start, in the declaration, with the Emancipation proclamation?
And WHY would the son of a poor farmer go off to war unless HE HAD SLAVES?
Would You?

I can find a letter from Grant to the Tribune, but can't read it.
As for the six percent figure who owned slaves, sounds low.
The quotes I've seen .


In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery.
General Grant made the comment that, "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union.” Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side" in a letter to the Chicago Tribune 1862. Union General William T. Sherman said in 1864 "I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count Negros as equals. Let us capture Negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage." As I said before, these two men both owned slaves, and did not want to free them. I honestly do not see how so many "politically correct" people can stand there and say the "North was right."

"Just as most Northerners did not fight to end slavery, most Southerners did not fight to preserve it," wrote James I. Robertson, Jr.

Fighting for a 'Lost Cause' By Richard K. Kolb
Reasons for risking life and limb varied, but they usually came down to four fundamentals: uphold state sovereignty, regional duty, group solidarity and protection of home and family.

The notion that the average Confederate waged war to preserve slavery is a tenuous one at best. Only 6 percent of Southerners owned slaves, and 3 percent of those owned the majority. Recruits themselves referred to the war as "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

The concept of an individual State was far more important back then. In fact, wasn't Robert E Lee asked to lead the North's forces but he said if Virginia left the Union, he was obliged to go with her or something like that.  

There is a certain percentage of the definition of state sovereignty that is a euphemism for legal slavery. What percentage seems to me would  depend upon a person's moral objection and/or their economic dependency to slave labor.

I think state's right and slavery are two sides of the same coin.  But no matter, and this isn't an arguable point, without slavery, there would have been no war.

Eegore wrote on 10/11/17 at 09:24:29:


+1

But to a political operative your suggestion is like peeing in the ocean while swimming....
It gives you a temporary warmth.

To use identity politics is a avenue to empowerment, well, it has been, but we are seeing it collapse right before our eyes...

WebsterMark wrote on 10/11/17 at 10:22:42:


Yep, just like TT's "white guilt" BS.

It is used for only one reason, to pigeonhole folk, in this case, white folk.
If you stand against it, they say that proves it.
No, it just stupid to label folks by race, PERIOD.......
 

Valid reasons how?

I am not talking cultural or medical, etc, but merely for separation, as in divide and conquer.

raydawg wrote on 10/11/17 at 10:50:47: