Did she literally say "slaves were becoming less cost-effective and burdensome"? Seriously? No wonder the US is still a hotbed of racism.

Those who deny the cause was slavery are the same ones who now want the schools to teach that slavery wasn't such a bad thing. Imagine the coincidence.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

In (undeserved) fairness, there is a HUGE trend of U.S. liberals trying to indoctrinate American kids into the notion that the Union was okey-dokey with slavery. Even Presidents Obama and Biden have referenced this lie. The germ of truth in this is that the staunchly anti-slavery Abraham Lincoln would've preferred non-forcible means to end slavery; like the Republican he was, he sought to use economic means to make it "wither on the vine." Essentially, slavery no longer made economic sense, but Lincoln hoped that the South would not go to war to preserve it.

Not Liberals dummy.

After all, you have to have the cause in mind, and not the means. Or, rather, should prefer nonviolent means, regardless of how deserving and having-it-coming the opponent may be - still, war means destruction, death, atrocities of all shades and therefore isn't something easy to declare. Defending something that even had lost its minor and, compared to the vast and hideous ethical implications of slavery, irrelevant economic advantage would, after all, not make sense to any rational leader of the South (as a whole, of a state or county, on whatever level), so them declaring their secession was a stupid move to begin with ... as that leaves only the choice of accepting it, or enforcing to not accept. Which the Union did, rightfully so, and I'm glad they succeeded, but still - sorting this with means less than war would've been preferable, if there had been that option. Realistically seen, the Union couldn't accept the South declaring to no more be a member. To the declaration of "other causes" and, synchronously, declaring that slavery wasn't THAT bad - regardless of it being THAT bad, nobody ever dared to claim it was good at all on any rational grounds, ... "We didn't do it, but it wasn't that bad anyway, and after all, they deserved it" even expands into that trilogy at times, and this is also to be observed in those defending the Third Reich and refuse to accept the reality of the genocides it attempted and, partially, executed. Hideous people are pretty much alike everywhere, it seems. Aren't people gettin gback to praising Stalin, lately?

I think people misunderstood me; I wasn't trying to give any credit to those who deny that the Civil War was over slavery; I was explaining the absolutely insanely evil way children are being taught American history. The South started the war precisely because they recognized the non-viability of slavery without the ability to force new states to adopt legalized slavery. (So much for states' rights.)

You realize that's no better, right?