The emancipation proclamation came 2 years into the war. So the war really wasn't just about slavery. It would be ignorant to say that it wasn't a large factor but its not like the war started when Lincoln declared southern slaves free.
>War X was about Issue Y and not any other issues
Literally the most retarded thing anyone can say. You're right, OP.
What would Sherman say about nukes?
>>1241116
>cruel
>war soon over
I think he'd like them if it never crossed his mind his enemies could get them too.
>>1241154
His version of cruelty involved foraging peoples homes. He actually banned the use of land mines from both sides since he deemed them to be unfair. I don't think he would approve of weapons of mass destruction.
>>1241042
Lincoln was dithering over the issue to try to appear moderate. It backfired on him spectacularly, just like when Obama delayed the healthcare act until the dems 60th senate vote literally died of old age and they couldn't pass the bill without cutting it to shreds (removing public option). For the tin foilers out there, the senator who died was a kennedy ;)
Considering Lincoln was Obama's role model, none of this should be surprising.
after reading Sherman's memoirs and letters, I think a majority of his "badass" quotes aren't the result of him being a badass, but of him having an anxiety fueled mental breakdown. My favorite letter he wrote was a rant about how much he hated Cincinnati and wished it was burned down by the confederates.
>>1241168
He only burned peoples barns, not homes, as well. I would like to see a study as to how many people he displaced, and how many he actually killed.
Oh, that reminds, in 9th grade, one kid in my class thought the war began because of the March to the Sea, kek.
>>1241170
>another dead kennedy
Santa Claus strikes again?!? We ought to invade the North Pole
>>1241042
The question wasn't about Lincoln emamcipating slaves, it was about new territories
>>1241042
That proves it wasn't bout slavery for the North, it was about preserving the nation. For the South, slavery was enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.
>>1241185
>Oh, that reminds, in 9th grade, one kid in my class thought the war began because of the March to the Sea
Southerner?
>>1241185
he may have only burned peoples barns but during the march him and his soldiers had to live
off the land so they would steal food and steal livestock from every home and farm they stumbled upon.
>>1241199
So then on what grounds exactly was the war started?
>>1241189
Elaborate maybe?
>>1241185
>He only burned peoples barns, not homes, as well. I would like to see a study as to how many people he displaced, and how many he actually killed.
over half the slave narratives i've ever read included Sherman's men burning and pillaging everything in site. You should read them, pretty interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Narrative_Collection#External_links
>>1241204
>So then on what grounds exactly was the war started?
Secession, obviously. The South viewed Lincoln's election as a threat to their ability to continue slavery.
>>1241214
Okay so hundreds of thousands of poor people who owned no slaves fought a war about the threat to their right to own slaves?
>>1241254
I never said poor southerners were smart.
>>1241257
That's not really an answer man.
>>1241263
So what are you after than? Yes, hundreds of poor southerners ended up fighting for rich people's right to own slaves. Sounds like most wars, actually.
>>1241254
there's always the dream that you can "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" and one day own slaves.
also, far as i understood, the north functionally declared war on the south after they seceded. a lot of those people were simply defending their homeland from yankee sumbitches.
>>1241254
the rise in southern nationalism probably. Secessionists had been trying to get the south to leave since the nullification crisis, it picked up steam in the 50's after the 1850 Nashville convention and the rise of the republican party. A lot of the south just wanted to be independent regardless of slavery, although they definitely were pro-slavery.
>>1241267
Just a thought, could the South have had a "peaceable secession" if the assault on Fort Sumter hadn't happened, or would the North have found another pretext?
>>1241042
The war started because they were afraid he would free the slaves. Then he did. And they quickly lost.
>>1241203
Chinese, actually. Gave me a hard damn laugh.
To think of it, when was the last American entry to war that wasn't causes by some single event? Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, Zimmerman Telegram, Sinking of the Maine, Fort Sumter.
>>1241299
Iraq, I guess, because there was no dramatic first attack, just the scheming Bush Administration.
>>1241284
another pretext.
The North and the South really started to go separate ways after the War of 1812. The North had an isolationist view of America's future, wishing to reduce dependency on Europe. This led to a series of tariffs, most famous being the "Tariff of Abominations", as the Southerns called it. Keep in mind the South, as a stand alone country, would have been the world's 3rd richest country.
>>1241295
>4 years
>quickly
Wew lad.
only 5 years after the war in Europe the franco-prussian war took place and only lasted a year.
>>1241299
I'd argue most of those were simplified pretexts aside from Pearl Harbor and 9/11 (for Afghanistan)
>>1241299
>America's entry into the largest war in history
>single event
>>1241329
yeah.....
no........
Those events are more like the last straw then the single causal factor.
>>1241299
I mean Gulf of Tonkin was entirely faked so I guess that
>>1241254
Those people most likely worked in an industry that directly relied on slavery or did even tangentially.
Failing that the loss of slavery would hurt the southern economy so all would be affected regardless.
Try to think please.
