>Emancipation Proclamation only ended slavery in the Confederacy.

It was a war goal and a precedent for the Thirteenth Amendment. Without it, outright abolition of the slave trade simply would not have worked.

It wasn't a war goal anywhere near the beginning of the war

I never said it was. It was one of the underlying factors though.

It was never a underlying factor until the south was about to win

[quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War]The main explanation is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would violate the principle of states' rights.[/url][/quote] Might want to rethink that.

You use Wikipedia? The civil war was not about slavery at first. That's a common misconception in history. Just like George Washington being the first president of the US. Because he wasn't. The South wanted to secede, and the north didn't want to let them. The south had major industries that the north needed, and wanted. Slavery ended up being a part near the end, because the south was going to win, and the north knew a surge of African American troops would push the war to them. Among other reasons. But the civil war was not anything about slavery at first. [spoiler]Aren't you not from America anyway?[/spoiler]

[quote]You use Wikipedia? The civil war was not about slavery at first. That's a common misconception in history.[/quote] You got a better source? Or are you just going to continue using conjecture as argumentation? Protip: A conservative think tank is not a reputable source. [quote]Just like George Washington being the first president of the US. Because he wasn't.[/quote] Okay? [quote]The South wanted to secede, and the north didn't want to let them. The south had major industries that the north needed, and wanted.[/quote] And why did they want to secede? Because the North wanted to block expansionary slave trades in western territories. My source explicitly states this, in like, the first sentence. [quote]Slavery ended up being a part near the end, because the south was going to win, and the north knew a surge of African American troops would push the war to them. Among other reasons.[/quote] I'll concede to the fact that it wasn't Lincoln's primary goal, mainly because he simply wanted to keep the Union intact, but to say slavery wasn't one of the main factors at the beginning is simply wrong and fallacious. [quote]Aren't you not from America anyway?[/quote] And that disparages my ability to discuss topics related to America now?

[quote]You got a better source? Or are you just going to continue using conjecture as argumentation? Protip: A conservative think tank is not a reputable source.[/quote] [url=http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/statesrights.html]It was mainly about States rights, and not slavery. Yes, the Union didn't want slavery to expand in the west. The point of the south was that the Union had no control over what the state could do.[/url] [quote][quote]Just like George Washington being the first president of the US. Because he wasn't.[/quote] Okay?[/quote] Just like the civil war was about slavery, both are common misconceptions. [quote]And why did they want to secede? Because the North wanted to block expansionary slave trades in western territories. My source explicitly states this, in like, the first sentence.[/quote] Not specifically because they were blocking slavery, but because they weren't letting states decide for themselves. Which is the reason that the US was formed as a whole, to get away from a monarchical power in England. That's why states rights are so important, because they didn't want to end up like England. [quote]And that disparages my ability to discuss topics related to America now?[/quote] Because as you have already shown, you are using a common misconception about US history. You are only going to know what the history books says about the US, and not about the full history that the books will not tell you.

[quote][url=http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/statesrights.html]It was mainly about States rights, and not slavery. Yes, the Union didn't want slavery to expand in the west. The point of the south was that the Union had no control over what the state could do.[/url][/quote] And...this does not discredit or refute what I've already established at all. In fact, it reinforces my points. [quote]Abolitionist groups sprang up in the North, making Southerners feel that their way of life was under attack. A violent slave revolt in 1831 in Virginia, Nat Turner’s Rebellion, forced the South to close ranks against criticism out of fear for their lives. They began to argue that slavery was not only necessary, but in fact, it was a positive good. As the North and the South became more and more different, their goals and desires also separated. Arguments over national policy grew even fiercer. The North’s economic progress as the Southern economy began to stall fueled the fires of resentment. By the 1840s and 1850s, North and South had each evolved extreme positions that had as much to do with serving their own political interests as with the morality of slavery.[/quote] And let me reiterate myself clearly before you create some imaginary point for us to chase circles around, as you've been known to do: Slavery was one of the main underlying factors for the beginning of the Civil War. Was it the only factor? Certainly not, but to say that it was never an impetus is absolutely incorrect. [quote]Just like the civil war was about slavery, both are common misconceptions.[/quote] And I never said the civil war was about slavery, for the 5th time. [quote]Not specifically because they were blocking slavery, but because they weren't letting states decide for themselves. Which is the reason that the US was formed as a whole, to get away from a monarchical power in England. That's why states rights are so important, because they didn't want to end up like England.[/quote] Are you seriously implying the Union was Monarchical? [quote]Because as you have already shown, you are using a common misconception about US history. You are only going to know what the history books says about the US, and not about the full history that the books will not tell you.[/quote] >"My rhetoric is more accurate than historic fact because that's what I've been spoonfed." Yep. You really have no critical thinking skills at all.

Yep, I figured after you decided to say conservative think tank you weren't capable of having an actual conversation. Much less about a country you don't live in. And now it's been confirmed, thanks for playing. Try not to believe everything in the history books please.

Backpedaling this early? You usually give it a few more replies before you cop out and damage control to the max. I'm dissapointed XXxxCOxxwBexxXlXxxl.

[quote]Backpedaling this early? You usually give it a few more replies before you cop out and damage control to the max. [/quote] How ironic.

>Yishae Top kek.