When you look into it there really is no doubt about the Civil War. The slavers struck first in Kansas, and the reasons were clear. Good research, I do see you have apparently run all the revisionists away.
Using your logic leads to the conclusion that the Constitution, Dec of Ind.,etc are not really true. The WMD thing was an admitted error in intelligence not the declared intent of a new nation as were the documents I posted. Where are the docs from the southern leaders declaring going to war over slavery was a big boo boo?
Actually I think I said there were many that didn't realize or feel like they were fighting to free the slaves, until after the emancipation proclamation. And that they should know they, unlike today's academics, were actually there. Do I need to rephrase the question you avoided? Duly noted, I stand erected. (I never liked that place anyway)
I disagree. There's a lot of dopes in the military even today who are there because they need a paycheck, want "adventure", etc., and couldn't care less or even know why they get the orders they do. I know, I was one of them once. Lol @ "stand erected".
Hmmm, the question was is the rhetoric in the clip a factual historic monologue or something a modern writer made up. IOW is it a documented fact that a union soldier by the name of such and such actually made such a speech or was it created by a modern writer? Oh won't argue with that now or then. But I don't see how that renders my point useless. The point being that soldiers actually alive at the time had no idea they were fighting to free the slaves when according to some freeing the slaves was the whole and only reason for the war.
That's right. Historians who have access to documents, public and private, from the highest level decision makers of the time are more qualified to state the true reasons for the war. If they're not, no one is. And if no one is, we may as well write history the way we want it written, ie. for the highest possible motives--to free the slaves.
The songs sung by the grunts tell us a lot. I've already posted one of the songs sung by the "Wide Awakes". The "anthem" of the northern army was the famous "Battle Hymn of the Republic"by Julia Ward Howe. It's first verse is known by almost everyone: "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored, He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword His truth is marching on." The last verse, not so well known: " In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on. " Seneca
If the Civil War was about slavery, why then did the South's offer to end slavery (for the purpose of averting the war), not avoid the war? Someone who maintains that the Civil War was about slavery must answer this question. Furthermore, if the civil war was about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the north in his Emancipation Proclamation? Did he only believe that Southern slaves deserved freedom? LOL!
It's some of those same historians that noted the grumbling of many union troops AFTER the emancipation proclamation that they had no desire or interest to fight and die to free African slaves. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me put it another way. Was Clinton impeached/nearly thrown out of office for getting a BJ from a fat girl, or by lying under oath about the BJ thereby committing felony perjury? It was the felony perjury of course. Clinton lovers of course try to forget, dismiss or trivialize the whole thing as being about a BJ. But it was the perjury that gave congress the reason to impeach, had Clinton never lied under oath about it there would never have been an impeachment vote. April, 1861 Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 pm, April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Why did the Confederates demand the surrender of Fort Sumter in the first place? Because SC had succeeded from the union and the fort was now in the Confederacy, in their eyes a separate sovereign nation. Had there been no succession there would likely have been no war. While of course there were some crusaders willing to fight for abolition I'm of the opinion most (that weren't drafted) in the federal army were fighting to restore/preserve the union. Take General Sherman for example, it's well known he had a rather low opinion of the Negroes and he intentionally allowed many to drown after a river crossing on his march to the Savannah. While polite towards them in person he didn't give rats ass about slavery. From everything I've read and seen he was not alone. Now of course the PC bleeding hearts like to point out that the successions were over a dispute of states rights; to have slaves. This is true, but it's not why the war was fought. Had the north collectively cared about abolition then why didn't they start the war sooner and invade the south to free the slaves? Slavery had been going on for generations. Slavery was to the civil war as the BJ was to Clinton's impeachment. A significant factor, but NOT the primary cause.