Comments by "pplr1" (@pplr1) on "CNBC Television" channel.

You are correct the South started the US Civil War in an attempt to protect slavery. During the time the war went on Union soldiers came to have an increasingly negative view of slavery as they saw more of it up close. The length of the war also gave Lincoln-who didn't like slavery-opportunities to disrupt it, which he did.
2
Multiple step process. The Emancipation Proclamation legally freed slaves in most states where slavery was in practice and Lincoln (who opposed slavery) could dress it up as a punishment for Confederate states while creating a huge step forwards in an attempt to abolish slavery. If finally took Amending the US Constitution-which Lincoln also supported-to end slavery in all US States.
2
Below is arguably Lincoln preparing the USA for his declaration of all slaves in the Confederate States to be considered free. That was a huge step forwards in abolitionist efforts. The quote is very relevant, and a step in a good direction. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
2
@barronvonschneider2834 "You could have tagged me and added context." I did add context. That I also included the quote you made so that people could see exactly what was said in relation to the context I added doesn't change that I added context. Do you normally accuse others of your faults?
2
Conservative Southerners started the US Civil War because they were afraid slavery was going to be ended and wanted to continue it. At the time many of them belonged to the Democratic Party but in the over 100+ years that passed conservatives switched to the Republican party and so did the notion of promoting "States rights" to an extent. Democrats like Hubert Humphrey pushed their political party towards supporting civil rights during the 20th Century.
1
Not the "facts". Keeping slavery around was a chief concern for Southern politicians that started the US Civil War and they said as much-often in the declarations of succession they put through.
1
The South started the US Civil War in an attempt to preserve slavery. Multiple Confederate politicians and office holders made this rather clear.
1
She failed to accurately describe history. That is the problem.
1
I see a bunch of Trump fans or bots trying to put out some heavy cope for him. He wasn't that great as a President and when he lost his bid for re-election he tried to steal the election.
1
Less of a hot button issue but, despite all the interesting info you put out, your claim is still wrong. Southern politicians started the US Civil War in an attempt to preserve slavery. They often said as much in the succession related documents and statements they made when trying to break from the Union.
1
@garyguyton7373 I don't trust everything a politician says. That said not only did Southern politicians care enough about the issue to put their thoughts on the matter in writing but an atypically large portion of Southern politicians were slaveowners themselves. This means slaveholders had greater control over Southern political systems than an average Southerner. And this doesn't even touch on the political power/influence of the plantation owners which were a special group of slaveowners. You laid out a lot of interesting information. Really, you did and it is worth mentioning. That said, slavery was still a primary driver.
1
@garyguyton7373 I agree differences grew over time. If you're argument is that different economics caused slavery to die off in the North but continue in the South that still leaves slavery as a direct cause of the US Civil War. There may be other factors that led to it but the faction that started the US Civil War itself did so in an attempt to protect slavery. If it had a different legal tradition or economic structure (perhaps with less focus on plantations in the "Deep South") perhaps the evolution would have gone differently. Since it didn't it resulted in something that was a source (not just a symptom even if it started that way) of strain between groups with in the USA.
1
@garyguyton7373 Perhaps you should reconsider how you divide those up. Specifically consider when someone gets a serious flu and then pneumonia. The pneumonia is a separate infection. It was able to move in because of the flu but it is the cause of its own symptoms. The pneumonia and especially not its symptoms are not symptoms of the flu-especially as they persist after the flu is over.
1
Lincoln did. I noticed not only did you include only a small part of that Lincoln comment (selective editing??) but you also tried to ignore the context that this particular comment was Lincoln trying to prepare the USA for the Emancipation Proclamation where slaves in every Confederate state were declared to be seen as free by the Federal government. A move that only had impact where Union armies had control but ended up becoming a major blow to slavery as a practice.
1
Thank you for acknowledging the South started the US Civil War in an attempt to continue slavery.
1
I thought she actually has family that are immigrants from India. So wrong kind of "Indian". I don't think that makes her a bad person in any way BTW, just trying to clear up her linage.
1
Note sure what barronvonschneider2834's point is by putting out that quote of Lincoln. Not sure how it relates to the specific question asked of Nikki H. That said the quote was historically Lincoln getting the USA ready for his latter declaration of all slaves in any state that was part of the Confederacy to be considered free. Thus a major help to abolitionist efforts.
1
@JohnEglick-pl1sb not only was slavery the reason Southern politicians started the US Civil War-something they acknowledged in writing-but before that point the South was arguably overrepresented in Congress. The 3/5ths clause when determining representation in the US House meant that slaves would not be able to vote but their numbers added to the impact of their masters political power. Non-slaveholding states did not get the same boost in the # of representatives in the US House because they didn't have a population of slaves that could count towards their proportional representation but not be part of the actual voters on election day.
1
@barronvonschneider2834 And your point is what exactly? Each time I was responding to a quote you made but didn't include the context of.
1
@princybella6 That "Border States" weren't included does not mean the that Emancipation Proclamation (aimed at Confederate States) was not a huge step forwards in ending slavery, it was.
1
@barronvonschneider2834 You: "You could have tagged me and added context." also you: "It didn't need context". Kinda contradicting yourself to an extent. Also the context was useful to avoid missing the point that it was part of a major step forwards in abolishing slavery.
1
The US South started the US Civil War in an attempt to preserve slavery as Southern politicians feared at some point the Federal government being used to end slavery.
1
Your take on history is not correct. By the time the US Civil War came around slavery had been ended in most Northern States. The "border states" with the South still had it but largely only them. And, importantly, the South started the US Civil War in an attempt to keep slavery around.
1
techtutorvideos got a reply out before I did but he (or she) is correct. The South started the US Civil War. So the question is why did the South do it. Southern politicians themselves made clear they wanted to continue the practice of slavery.
1
"When you actually research the civil war, you learn that it was about economics more than slavery, mostly import taxes." No. Actual research including statements by Southern Politicians at the time shows slavery was a primary reason. I know there have been attempts to whitewash the Confederacy after the fact but that are still attempts at whitewashing.
1