For anyone else wanting to read further. Would also explain why Indians fought for the south without owning any slaves. History makes the south out to be big slave owners. At the height of slavery only 1.6% of the population owned slaves. Yet the south came together because of:
In 1860, the white population of the South was about 8 million, and the slave population was about 4 million. Free nonwhites were about a quarter million. Nearly 1 out of every 3 people were slaves. It hardly matters if they were all owned by 1.6% of the population.
The South came together for other reasons having to do with being in the path of war, but the war was started by Southern Democrats to break from the Union in order to continue as slave states.
That is such a pat answer. Who says so? Prove it. And then prove that the history books are false. You've run out of argument.
You've run out of critical thinking skills due to your biases.
https://greatawakening.win/p/19BtGVIryw/q1957-buy-a-history-book-publish/c/
And you've run out of argument, throwing other things at me. All you have left are insults. I've got plenty of old history books. And family history,
For anyone else wanting to read further. Would also explain why Indians fought for the south without owning any slaves. History makes the south out to be big slave owners. At the height of slavery only 1.6% of the population owned slaves. Yet the south came together because of:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
In 1860, the white population of the South was about 8 million, and the slave population was about 4 million. Free nonwhites were about a quarter million. Nearly 1 out of every 3 people were slaves. It hardly matters if they were all owned by 1.6% of the population.
The South came together for other reasons having to do with being in the path of war, but the war was started by Southern Democrats to break from the Union in order to continue as slave states.