Wasnt the north sold on the idea that the civil war was about States rights and months after the war began, Lincoln said the war was about slavery? The north revolted and went ape**** because they didn't agree with slavery but they didn't want to die for it.
The North was sold on the idea that the Civil War was about preserving the Union (Lincoln said as much over and over again) and yes you are correct they did indeed go ape**** whenever Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, hundreds of white Union soldiers threw down their weapons and stomped off the battlefield. Zeet and Cajun are right to a point in that the South fought (in their minds anyway) for state's rights, and yes the ability to own slaves was a big part of that to them, though not the only part. I would say that the ability to leave the Union voluntarily (just like they entered it voluntarily) was a close #2 to the right to own slaves in their minds.
Beds is right about the big time theologians of the day in the South were the buttkissers of slave owners because if you take 4 or 5 verses out of the Bible totally out of context like major theologians like to do it makes it sound like the Bible favored the use of black people as slaves, but of course anybody who actually reads what Jesus said would know he was 100% against any type of slavery, physical or spiritual. This is why I favor theologians like Bedell. He and I don't always agree on everything but I know his heart is in the right place no matter what he preaches. That goes a long way with me.
This attitude is why there are Southern Baptists as opposed to just "baptist Baptists". At their national convention around 1850 (sorry, I don't recall the exact year) the Baptists from the south got their undies in such a bunch about their denomination officially saying "Hell Yeah" about slavery that they split with the northern Baptists. This is just how insane people allow politicians to manipulate their thinking. They get used and don't even realize it.
So to recap:
Union-we must preserve the Union (1861-1862)..........Lincoln has to keep Britain and France out of the war so he issues the EP (1863-1865) we must free the slaves...grumble grumble grumble, oh well we want to win and as long as the slaves stay down there after the war I guess we can live with it. After all if the former slaves (for after the war) come up here we'll be saying "they took our jobs", and we have millions of immigrants coming into this country every year to abuse and they actually look like us and speak our language so...
South-we must fight for states rights, ie keep our slaves but also be able to leave the union if we so choose, just like we entered into the union when we so chose. And if leaving the union allows us to keep our slaves then "hell yeah". Another part of states' rights that doesn't get mentioned all that much was "and we won't be told what to do by any damn Yankee, even if that damn Yankee is right about A particular issue, like slavery".
I would use a more modern example to illustrate this point and if you think I ruffle feathers when I talk about the Civil War you'll love this one.
A woman should absolutely have the right to choose what goes on in and with her own body. I agree, hell yeah!! Wait I had sex without using birth control (and there's only like 900 different kinds out there that are practically free if not flat out free) well now I choose to take the life of the body that's growing inside my body because my body is the only body that's really a living body and well it's complicated (just like the Civil War causes and reasons). It's literally like jumping out of a plane but not taking your parachute and then 1/2 way down I declare I have the right to decide what goes on with and about my body so I will legislate that I can fly back up into that plane because "it's my choice".
So:
woman's right to choose what goes on in her own body, hell yeah!
woman's right to choose what goes on in another body, legally hell yeah, morally hell no.
Oh and don't think I"m just blaming the woman, except for this one time I heard about around 2000 years ago there was a guy involved and he shouldn't be able to just walk away and join the chorus of "stone that beeotch".
Just my long winded opinions. It's kind of early, I'm still kind of delirious.
