Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
Okay, this person is completely incorrect in their claim about sharecropping. But yes, the US federal government did not think slavery was an issue worth going to war to end. The Confederacy explicitly existed to continue slavery even though it was not threatened whatsoever in the South and more by freesoilers out west, including Lincoln and most “antislavery” activists. The US invaded the Confederacy because the Confederacy picked a fight and decided to shoot first, it was not about any moral ground. The decision to implement antislavery policy as a tactic during the war is more accurately attributed to the growing food and resource crisis the Confederacy suffered relative to the huge advantage that guaranteeing freedom to the overwhelming enslaved population there created.
So, yes, it was good that slavery was abolished as a consequence of this War, but it would be distortive to suggest the Union fought to do that specifically. Solidarity among property-owning classes was a much more influential element in whether war broke out, and was indeed a huge reason why the war did not start until southerners started it despite the many good moral reasons to shut it down.
Thank you for diverging from that sharecropper dipshit!
I would mention how the American West was a constant battleground, as shown with Saint John Brown.
You are absolutely correct that while Lincoln was an abolitionist, he said he wasn’t willing to risk the Union over the “issue”. Yet despite the claimed class solidarity between the North and South propertied, the South still became traitors as soon as Lincoln was elected.