I still want to get back to this topic, but it's been so long that I've lost most of the context and the immediate criteria upon which I was operating. Maybe I'll get back to it later on in the week.
That being said, Iggy's latest response doesn't require further context for me to adequately respond to it:
More from my heritage of defiance. How fucking dare the federal government oppress my people so...
If we were free, instead of having negro suffrage, we would have negro slavery. Instead of having the United States government, we would have the Confederate States government.
Neither you nor Doc can operate under the premise that robbing the states of their rights by military force constituted a social high ground taken by the North when Lincoln wasn't actually pushing for the abolition of slavery to begin with. From the get go, the conflict initiated by the North was motivated by a desire to keep the tangent culture(s) of the Southern states within the political and economic sway of the North through Federal bondage. You can (erroneously) attempt to push the narrative that the South was motivated by slavery if you prefer, but you can neither passively nor actively claim that the North's aggression was an act of beneficence directed at the slaves.
