True, but in another thread, the repeated question was " why did it take a war to end slavery in the US when other nations did it without war? It was also stated directly by someone on your side of the aisle that it WAS the war that ended slavery. But it wasn’t actually lawfully ended until the 13th amendment was passed. And the black codes and Jim Crow laws that were passed still kept blacks in a defacto state of slavery.
so easily refuted… try harder.
Then you should have no problem finding where VA listed it as a reason to secede.
The only reference is to “oppression of the southern slave holding states.” You are free to read into it what you wish, but slavery is not a listed reason for secession.
Already been answered.
Of course it was a reference to slavery as a reason.
Why mention slaveholding as an adjective for the seceding states otherwise?
Not surprised you choose to double down on wrong, though.
No, In practice
Chattel Slavery vs Freedmen
You assume that was their motivation.
The war not being fought to end slavery doesn’t mean slavery was not its main cause.
They didn’t mention slaveholding as a reason, they used it as a adjective to describe the southern states. The reason they gave was “oppression”. Further, while more prominent in TX secession, the biggest gripe they had seemed to be that the feds would not assist in defending TX border against bandits. At least they went on much longer about that. Also the fact they they were closer to the other southern states, geography seems to have also affected their decision. Slavery was also a reason, but just one of a few. Now good luck finding the secession statements from the rest of the southern states, because they didn’t publish any.
Not in practice. Northerners were “mostly” against slavery, but not all (about 2/3 according to what I’ve read). And of those who were it was the institution they abhorred not the people they loved. They hated the institution of slavery, they mostly didn’t give a tinkers damn about the actual slaves.
What am I assuming?
If I was a slave in 1860 and I escaped to the North, would I be subject to Chattel Slavery? Or would I be free?
Before the war? depends on which state you escaped to. In Delaware you’d still be a slave, because as Biden likes to remind us (when he wants southern redneck votes), Delaware, was a slave state. In point of fact, since the slaves in thye south were freed by the emancipation proclamation, Delaware was likely the last Slave state.
Yes Southern Democrats were conservative.
Which may explain why it’s mostly conservatives that are the ones getting upset at the “erasure” of “Southern Heritage”?
LOL, yeah, LBJ, Algore and Sheets Byrd were soooooooo conservative.
Boo hoo. Poor Southerners being prevented from owning human beings and expanding their trade westward. How would they ever get by? Maybe like the rest of the civilized world?
rather childish response.
Had the northern industrial states not limited trade, it is possible that the southern states may have been able to survive the abolition of slavery. In that context, they may not have felt they had to secede and could adjust. Southern producers were land rich and cash poor, and the trade restrictions kept them that way. How different would the world be today had this happened? The question was asked, I answered it. If the best you can do in response is a childishly delivered example of arrogance, bile, hatred, and bias, maybe you should not reply at all?
They were liberal?
Robert Byrd was around a long time but I don’t think he was around in the late 1800s…the time period of which I speak.
For sure the others weren’t.
But nice attempted dodge.
Almost as childish as the traitorous South who couldn’t own and breed human beings anymore.
The question received the response it deserved. The Confederacy is nothing but a pathetic stain on our country’s history without any redeeming qualities. Anyone who thinks they have the right to own and breed another human being is nothing but a piece of trash.