New book Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War

[Danielart]

spin away.

still does make your fantasies real.
Clyde Wilson is a documented fruitcake of your same opinion stream - so there is that.

"
Book Review by Processor Wilson!!!
"
what is a processor?

historians will not "take on your book" simply because you base your entire premise on seriously minute "data" as proving the majority.

Abbeville? oh crap. we have ancestors lived, died and buried there.

people who bought your book, found it unreadable. documented purchases. deny that.

the "north" did not instigate warfare. the instigation of warfare had zip comma zero to do with slavery, regardless of your cocked up rationale.
but, please feel free to disagree with real history.

Exactly right.

 

[Danielart]

Maybe first read my book before drawing conclusions. I point out uncomfortable facts such as black slave owners, I never say that justified slavery. I tell uncomfortable truths about slavery, I allow people who observed it and experienced it tell us what it was like, but I never justify it. Please do not lie about things you have not read.

Black Slave owners is not an "uncomfortable fact". It is realized history and there are reasons why Freed Blacks participated in Chattel Slavery of other Black people. Those reasons echo the reasons why White Slave owners operated and thrived in the business of Chattel Slavery.

You're writing about Black Slave owners in the South as if this is a Light Bulb ..OMG revelation.
It is not and it simply reinforces the evils of the Southern culture which fought to continue the ungodly and unjustified business of Slavery.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

spin away.

still does make your fantasies real.
Clyde Wilson is a documented fruitcake of your same opinion stream - so there is that.

"
Book Review by Processor Wilson!!!
"
what is a processor?

historians will not "take on your book" simply because you base your entire premise on seriously minute "data" as proving the majority.

Abbeville? oh crap. we have ancestors lived, died and buried there.

people who bought your book, found it unreadable. documented purchases. deny that.

the "north" did not instigate warfare. the instigation of warfare had zip comma zero to do with slavery, regardless of your cocked up rationale.
but, please feel free to disagree with real history.

But remember, according to you historians are the authority, and so we must listen to him and not you!!! See, in the academic community, Wilson is a scholar, and you are the fruitcake!!!

About Clyde N. Wilson, PhD - The Calhoun Institute

Clyde Norman Wilson (born 11 June 1941) is a professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina, a paleoconservative political commentator, a long-time contributing editor for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and Southern Partisan magazine, and an occasional contributor...

calhouninstitute.com

So I must take his review of my book, especially since he read it and you did not, over a fruitcake.

I am sure that, according to you, anyone who tells the truth is a fruitcake!!!

We already resolved those formatting issues; it only occurred with certain eBook devices. However, a lesser issue remains and will be fixed on Monday. I am sure you are excited about that!!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

There's no question Slavery was invented in the Confederacy.
There's no question that Slavery has always existed.

The problem is when these facts are used as a "defense for Dixie".
There is no "defense for Dixie".

Dixie was wrong, Slavery was always an abomination, and the Slave industry in the South was immoral and only fought for due to how profitable it was. Humans were chattel and no amount of "Southern manners" or "saving our traditions" or nonsense about State's Rights inoculates the parties involved from an objective evil.

Another prime example of why truth matters, many can easily be lead astray!!!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Black Slave owners is not an "uncomfortable fact". It is realized history and there are reasons why Freed Blacks participated in Chattel Slavery of other Black people. Those reasons echo the reasons why White Slave owners operated and thrived in the business of Chattel Slavery.

You're writing about Black Slave owners in the South as if this is a Light Bulb ..OMG revelation.
It is not and it simply reinforces the evils of the Southern culture which fought to continue the ungodly and unjustified business of Slavery.

Well you are enlightened my friend, most originally deny this fact let alone know about it.

I have a few chapters that might dispute your claims. But as most people do, you will ignore truth and keep your cherished beliefs, I am ok with that.

 

[chowderman]

But remember, according to you historians are the authority, and so we must listen to him and not you!!! See, in the academic community, Wilson is a scholar, and you are the fruitcake!!!

About Clyde N. Wilson, PhD - The Calhoun Institute

Clyde Norman Wilson (born 11 June 1941) is a professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina, a paleoconservative political commentator, a long-time contributing editor for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and Southern Partisan magazine, and an occasional contributor...

calhouninstitute.com

So I must take his review of my book, especially since he read it and you did not, over a fruitcake.

I am sure that, according to you, anyone who tells the truth is a fruitcake!!!

We already resolved those formatting issues; it only occurred with certain eBook devices. However, a lesser issue remains and will be fixed on Monday. I am sure you are excited about that!!

just the usual gibberish. anyone who has an opposing view is wrong.
if "formatting issues" change the context of your book, wow do you have serious problem.

read your dear processor's history and reputation. he's a fruitcake.
he and idiots like Al Sharpton and AOC all fit into the same slice.
deny everything - the truth is as I say it.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

just the usual gibberish. anyone who has an opposing view is wrong.
if "formatting issues" change the context of your book, wow do you have serious problem.

read your dear processor's history and reputation. he's a fruitcake.
he and idiots like Al Sharpton and AOC all fit into the same slice.
deny everything - the truth is as I say it.

Well said

 

[m1west]

There's no question Slavery was invented in the Confederacy.
There's no question that Slavery has always existed.

The problem is when these facts are used as a "defense for Dixie".
There is no "defense for Dixie".

Dixie was wrong, Slavery was always an abomination, and the Slave industry in the South was immoral and only fought for due to how profitable it was. Humans were chattel and no amount of "Southern manners" or "saving our traditions" or nonsense about State's Rights inoculates the parties involved from an objective evil.

You either skim when you read or don't comprehend very well. What I said is a statement of facts, nowhere do I condone slavery. I merely point out that slavery has been around for a long time and somewhere in the world it will remain ongoing. People like you can dwell on the past even if it doesn't effect you directly. Dwelling on the past is not healthy for the mind and body.

 

[tiredretired]

No one has done more to perpetuate the enslavement of blacks than the Democrats. They are the party of slavery and as such should be declared an illegal political party in this country and outlawed. Most of its current leaders should be thrown in prison if we had a fair and equitable justice system in this country. The Bidenites, their lap dogs in the media and congressional leaders could easily be convicted of sedition and treason simply on the border crisis alone and there are hundreds of examples.

The Democrat Party whom I prefer to refer to as the Demon Party has been the enemy of this Republic since the day it was formed and should have been outlawed at the end of the Civil War. Because it was not, we had the KKK, Jim Crow, the battles against the Civil Rights laws. On needs to look no further than at the plight of the black man in the current Demon party run cities to understand it continues unabated to this day.

I have nothing against southern people. I like them very much and I separate them from the utter evil that was the demoncrat Confederacy.

Anyone who attempts to glorify or defend the Demon Party Confederacy is an enemy of this Republic and should be treated as such.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

No one has done more to perpetuate the enslavement of blacks than the Democrats. They are the party of slavery and as such should be declared an illegal political party in this country and outlawed. Most of its current leaders should be thrown in prison if we had a fair and equitable justice system in this country. The Bidenites, their lap dogs in the media and congressional leaders could easily be convicted of sedition and treason simply on the border crisis alone and there are hundreds of examples.

The Democrat Party whom I prefer to refer to as the Demon Party has been the enemy of this Republic since the day it was formed and should have been outlawed at the end of the Civil War. Because it was not, we had the KKK, Jim Crow, the battles against the Civil Rights laws. On needs to look no further than at the plight of the black man in the current Demon party run cities to understand it continues unabated to this day.

I have nothing against southern people. I like them very much and I separate them from the utter evil that was the demoncrat Confederacy.

Anyone who attempts to glorify or defend the Demon Party Confederacy is an enemy of this Republic and should be treated as such.

David Barton/Glenn Beck fan? I used to hold this same view when I was under the sway of Republican historians; luckily, I was freed from their grasp. I now recognize that neither the Republicans nor democratic resemble anything similar to the founders, in fact, it was Lincoln and the Republicans who destroyed it!!!

 

[mla2ofus]

David Barton/Glenn Beck fan? I used to hold this same view when I was under the sway of Republican historians; luckily, I was freed from their grasp. I now recognize that neither the Republicans nor democratic resemble anything similar to the founders, in fact, it was Lincoln and the Republicans who destroyed it!!!

Don't know what you're smokin' issac, but keep it up!!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Don't know what you're smokin' issac, but keep it up!!

History is one of the greatest highs in the world!

Check that, it is actually depressing

 

[m1west]

There's no question Slavery was invented in the Confederacy.
There's no question that Slavery has always existed.

The problem is when these facts are used as a "defense for Dixie".
There is no "defense for Dixie".

Dixie was wrong, Slavery was always an abomination, and the Slave industry in the South was immoral and only fought for due to how profitable it was. Humans were chattel and no amount of "Southern manners" or "saving our traditions" or nonsense about State's Rights inoculates the parties involved from an objective evil.

I agree slavery is wrong, but dixie didn't invent slavery. Do you read the Bible? Most of the people in it were slaves at one time. Slavery likely started the first time a more advanced tribe met another. When you pay 40% fed tax. 15% state tax 10% sales tax plus property taxes and local taxes. I would argue the American people are slaves to some extent.

 

[Tiburon]

Thank you for the interest. Allow me to quote my blurb for details

"History is the propaganda of the victorious," observed Voltaire, and the history of America's so-called "Civil War" is no exception…It is under that prevailing narrative that Isaac. C. Bishop, a native of New England and the author of Defending Dixie's Land, came to find his interest in the South. Steeped in that narrative, he accepted it without question…With further research, the Truth began to reveal itself to the author, culminating in this fine book. The Truth cannot be killed. It may be buried alive, but it will not die. Like an archaeologist, Bishop has discovered the tomb of the Truth, and with this book he has rolled the stone away.
- H. V. Traywick, Jr. Author of Empire of the Owls: Reflections on the North’s War Against Southern Secession

The Southern Confederacy and its war for independence has always had defenders among informed students of history. These defenders have appeared in every generation. Some of them are from north of the Potomac or even across the Atlantic. The case for the South is here made again. For the future health of America It must be repeated until it sinks in.
-Clyde Wilson Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History, University of South Carolina

Are you interested in knowing the actual history of your country, or are you content with the propagandized version the winners of wars conjure up to feed schoolchildren? When it comes to the story and tradition of the U.S. South, and especially the events surrounding the Civil War (1861–1865), you may need to brace yourself. What you think you know about it is likely untrue – and not just by a little.

Isaac C Bishop is a lifelong New-Englander who happened to become interested in southern culture. But when he began to earnestly study its history and folklore, he was shocked by what he learned. Thus began an intense multi-year quest to unearth a true story which resulted in Defending Dixie's Land. Should you choose to set aside your preconceived biases and “take the red pill” with the author, you will discover:

• How the United States government was originally meant to function, and by what means that system was usurped in the mid-1800’s
• The real reasons the cotton states initially seceded
• The entirely different factors which prompted the upper South to then also secede
• An accurate picture of what life was like for minorities in both the North and South, and, as inherently wrong as the institution of slavery has always been on planet earth, why southern slaves generally viewed their situation as preferable
• Character traits and motives of Abraham Lincoln which shatter the humanitarian hero image painted in our minds
• Eye-opening facts about African-American support for the Confederacy, the history and current status of slavery worldwide, insights into the true enemy of free peoples everywhere, and more.

Defending Dixie's Land is an all-encompassing defense of the Southern cause; readers will no longer view American history the same.

Except this is patently false, as the existence of the Lost Cause shows quite clearly.

 

[Tiburon]

This is an indisputable fact. The south started the civil war over states rights and fired the first shots. It was not the North attacking the south over slavery.
Another indisputable fact. The tribal kings in Africa had a slave market long before the colonials came along. Actually England spent a lot of money and lives to stop it in the end as the African kings didn't want to stop.
Is slavery moral or right, not in my book, but every race has been a slave at one time or another and likely will be again. Folks just need to get over it.

It is an indisputable fact that the South started the civil war to defend one very specific “state‘s right”....the “state‘s right” to own slaves.

 

[Tiburon]

Great point; as I stated, the transatlantic slave trade would not have been profitable had not Africans rounded up and readily exported their own people so slave traders could also profit. I am glad the Confederacy outlawed the slave trade, as did many southern states before the civil war. Unfortunately, the United States maintained the practice for over a hundred years!!!!

The majority of black slaves went East, not West. Before they ever went West, they were sold to India, the middle east, etc., for thousands of years.

That citation of Southern leaders had nothing to do with their treatment of slaves, only the Southern view (as opposed to some Northern scientists) that the slave was 100% human and had the same value as whites. Context matters!!!!

Yes, formatting mistakes have occurred with the ebook version and are being worked on as we speak. The other reviewers could not cite anything in my book and only gave a random opinion with no factual basis. I am not concerned with such reviews.

BTW- Many authors purposely self-publish as I have for numerous reasons. Do a quick Google to see why traditional publishing is on the way out and why self-publishing is better for the AUTHOR.

Slavery

The fact that you make these sorts of claims proves what I have said; we are only allowed a tiny portion of history to determine what slavery was like while ignoring the vast majority of historical documentation!!!

So, for example, here is a source that provides thousands of first-hand accounts of slavery from the perspective of slaves themselves (your video used them). I quote from and utilize this source over a hundred times in my books but could have done so many more hundreds of times.

About this Collection | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 contains more than 2,300 first-person accounts of slavery and 500 black-and-white photographs of former slaves. These narratives were collected in the 1930s as part of the Federal Writers' Project (FWP) of the Works...

www.loc.gov

In these interviews with former slaves, you will find the good, the bad, and the ugly of slavery, but your video and what the typical American is allowed to hear is only the bad while the majority are ignored. You have been deceived, willingly or not. I do not care if you buy my book; instead, do what I did and read those interviews (it is best to do so by state). You will find slavery, for most, was radically different from what you have been allowed to hear on the subject. This is just one source; I utilize many sources from the period that agree with these interviews. Eventually, if you read those sources that, as you say, are at our fingertips (so no excuse for ignoring them), you will discover a genuine historical understanding of slavery, which might drive you to do what I did, say hay, we can still condemn slavery but at least let's tell the truth about it!!

As for your questions can all be answered in the "preview" section of my book on Amazon. And you carry many false assumptions in them as well, showing how deeply ingrained the propaganda has become. So just as an example, here is a small section of my book


The truth is much different. It was Southern theologians like Rev Thomas Smyth in The Unity of the Human Races Proved to be the Doctrine of Scripture, Reason, and Science with a Review of the Present Position and Theory of Professor Agassi, and South Carolinian slavery apologists like the Rev James Thornwell, who wrote in response to Northern scientists like Samuel Morton and Loius Agassiz’s claims that blacks were a separate lesser species from whites.

“It is a public testimony to our faith, that the negro is one blood with ourselves- that he has sinned as we have, and that he has equal interest with us in the great redemption. Science falsely so called [1 Tim 6.20] may attempt to exclude him from the brotherhood of humanity...arguments which link them with the brute. But the instinctive impulses of our nature, combined with the plainest declarations of the word of God, lead us to recognize...his moral, religious and intellectual nature the same humanity in which we glory as the image of God. We are not ashamed to call him our brother.”
-Rev. J H Thornwell The Rights and Duties of Masters Charleston South Carolina Steam-Power Press of Walker & James, 1850

With our modern devaluing of humanity, the slaveowner held higher regard for his slave than we free men do for each other. While the “evil” master did horrible things, they were the exception, not the rule. Slaves and their masters typically had a good relationship that was beneficial to both parties. Just because slaves were legal “property” in the same way as a wagon does not conclude the human, often Christian master, would not view his slave as made in the image of God.

“They share our physical nature, and are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh; they share our intellectual and spiritual nature ; each body of them covers an im- mortal soul God our Father loves, for whom Christ our Saviour died, and unto whom everlasting happiness or misery shall be meted in the final day….they are men, created in the image of God, to be acknowledged and cared for spiritually by us, as we acknowledge and care for the other varieties of the race, our own Caucasian or the Indian, or the Mongol…They are our constant and inseparable associates ; whither we go they go; where we dwell they dwell; where we die and are buried, there they die and are buried; and, more than all, our God is their God… they patiently nurse us and ours in long nights and days of illness ; our for-tunes are their fortunes; and our joys their joys; and our sorrows are their sorrows.”
-Dr Jones Address on the First Confederate General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church on the First day Augusta , GA dec, 4, 1861 Quoted in R.Q Mallard wrote Plantation Life Before Emancipation

Yeah, the very fact that you are trying to argue that “gee, slavery wasn’t so bad” is, by itself, enough to destroy any “credibility” you might have.

 

[Tiburon]

Southerners found out that a few pieces of equipment and a flock of geese could replace the slaves and was much cheaper.

And yet the reality is that as the years went on the South only became more entrenched in its defense of slavery, to the point where they defended it as an outright moral good.

 

[m1west]

It is an indisputable fact that the South started the civil war to defend one very specific “state‘s right”....the “state‘s right” to own slaves.

you are un informed. The North was an industrial powerhouse that imported everything. There was no income tax at that time, the north controlled congress and the revenues to run the country came from teriffs. The south exported textiles, mostly cotton, they had to pay the teriffs on the other end and didn't like that. Slavery was a way to level the playing field. History makes it sound like everyone had a slave to do there work. It wasn't so, very few people could either afford them or able to provide for them. Not my favorite part of American history but it happened. Get over it.

 

[m1west]

It is an indisputable fact that the South started the civil war to defend one very specific “state‘s right”....the “state‘s right” to own slaves.

The emancipation proclamation wasn't enacted until January1 1863, a full 3 years into the war. So the war didn't start over slavery. What is your next theory? I tend to deal in facts.

 

[Tiburon]

you are un informed. The North was an industrial powerhouse that imported everything. There was no income tax at that time, the north controlled congress and the revenues to run the country came from teriffs. The south exported textiles, mostly cotton, they had to pay the teriffs on the other end and didn't like that. Slavery was a way to level the playing field. History makes it sound like everyone had a slave to do there work. It wasn't so, very few people could either afford them or able to provide for them. Not my favorite part of American history but it happened. Get over it.

Literally none of your post disproves what I pointed out, which is that the South explicitly went to war to defend slavery.

 

[Tiburon]

The emancipation proclamation wasn't enacted until January1 1863, a full 3 years into the war. So the war didn't start over slavery. What is your next theory? I tend to deal in facts.

Facts, you say?

“Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas: The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.

South Carolina: Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

Georgia: That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

www.battlefields.org

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

I agree slavery is wrong, but dixie didn't invent slavery. Do you read the Bible? Most of the people in it were slaves at one time. Slavery likely started the first time a more advanced tribe met another. When you pay 40% fed tax. 15% state tax 10% sales tax plus property taxes and local taxes. I would argue the American people are slaves to some extent.

Indeed slaves kept a larger % of their earnings than we do today. Being forced to work and having your earnings involuntarily taken (such as our situation today) is a definition of slavery. We work against our will to benefit another.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

It is an indisputable fact that the South started the civil war to defend one very specific “state‘s right”....the “state‘s right” to own slaves.

Guess I better erase my numerous original sources and about 90 pages of text that says otherwise because Tiburon has stated it is so!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Slavery


Yeah, the very fact that you are trying to argue that “gee, slavery wasn’t so bad” is, by itself, enough to destroy any “credibility” you might have.

I never say that; I quote many slaves, northern abolitionists, and other observers who do, not in those exact words. But once more, we must dismiss history and those who observed the events because Tiburon has told us it must be false, and so it must be!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

The emancipation proclamation wasn't enacted until January1 1863, a full 3 years into the war. So the war didn't start over slavery. What is your next theory? I tend to deal in facts.

Neither did the EP end slavery, that is one of the Lincoln myths I cover in my book. It was a war measure effecting only confederate slaves not slaves within the US. Slavery was not over till the amendment after Lincolns death and after the war!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Literally none of your post disproves what I pointed out, which is that the South explicitly went to war to defend slavery.

You stated it was so, that is proof in your mind?

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Facts, you say?

“Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas: The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.

South Carolina: Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

Georgia: That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

www.battlefields.org

I have almost 100 pages that go in-depth on the various causes of secession and respond to the most common claims (such as what you have posted) that say the South left to preserve slavery. Your post proves my point, we are given limited data out of context to come to a false conclusion.

There are 16 secession documents; why do we only ever quote sections of four of them? Because those are the only ones that mention slavery! Why is it that we ignore the wealth of speeches and documents declaring why the South left the Union? The same reason. Why are we not given the working and understanding of the Union and the context in which these documents were formed? Once more, that would show a very different story to the causes of secession and that when slavery was an issue, it was always connected to something more vital.

If you wish to maintain your delusions and false historical narrative, DO NOT, READ MY BOOK!

 

[m1west]

Facts, you say?

“Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas: The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.

South Carolina: Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

Georgia: That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

www.battlefields.org

Did you read it? You cherry picked a few paragraphs, it also says a PEW research pole indicated 48% of Americans believe the war started over economics and states rights with 38% believing it was over slavery, the rest un decided. You must have some type of emotional connection to this debate as you are not using logic.

 

[chowderman]

you insist all your sources are gospel truth, and deny any other sources have any merit.
total absolute BS.

 

[Tiburon]

Guess I better erase my numerous original sources and about 90 pages of text that says otherwise because Tiburon has stated it is so!

Guess you better learn some actual history instead of regurgitating Lost Cause drivel, yes.