Thread of Statue Removals

[Nice Guy Eddie 13710]

 

15 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

 

I wouldn't want to get in a verbal fight with this guy. He comes prepared and can deliver an ad-hoc speech much better than I could.  If he went after me, I would soon wave a white flag.

 

12 hours ago, Pancho said:

 

100% this. I know BLM isn't about whether confederates were traitors or not but no one should be on the side of honoring them. That should be minimum bar. There isn't much to celebrate about Confederate leaders. Maybe they were nice to their dog or did something good before the civil war. Who cares.

[alincoln 2390]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Michael Harriot would have the same counterargument if you replaced "statute" with "white people"

[workswithseed 2201]

30 minutes ago, alincoln said:

I don't disagree.  Unfortunately, remedying this issue will take at least 30 years.  

It was Nikole who said that nuanced history is not okay. Unless it's for Ché, then it can be nuanced.

[LABEVO 928]

 

[Chad Fuck 18094]

I would have thought Andrew Jackson would be the patron saint of mob rule.

It would be ultimate karma if his statue was taken down by a mob.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

I'm waiting for someone to go after the Statue of Liberty.

[alincoln 2390]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm waiting for someone to go after the Statue of Liberty.

Fuck that Karen

[wildcat09 29562]

38 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Santa Rosa police believe it was linked to the protest.  Not much of a leap to ascribe it to the indiscriminate property damage part and parcel of these protests.

Oh, well if they say so then I'm convinced!

[bolverk 30245]

38 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Santa Rosa police believe it was linked to the protest.  Not much of a leap to ascribe it to the indiscriminate property damage part and parcel of these protests.

Still need a link on this accusation because none of the local news stories I've found indicate or insinuate that.

[Jive Turkey 12930]

 

[TheStoicPaisano 9948]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm waiting for someone to go after the Statue of Liberty.

The Man in the High Castle just did that storyline. Show it to DOTUS and he might spaz out.
 

[RomaVicta 30508]

On 6/21/2020 at 10:54 AM, StassneyHorn said:

Dallas Morning News with a piece on getting rid of Confederate Heroes Day in Texas. It sometimes falls on MLK day as well.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2020/06/18/its-time-to-get-rid-of-confederate-heroes-day-as-an-official-state-holiday/

We should let the Confederate Heroes vote on it. 

All in favor of keeping the holiday raise your hand. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Wait til Georgia's On The Mind:

[alincoln 2390]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Wait til Georgia's On The Mind:

Stone Mountain Park officially opened on April 14, 1965 – 100 years to the day after Lincoln's assassination.

[Asithappens 978]

16 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Now that's interesting.

Why stop at removing a statue of him? 

Why not rename the school?  Like that will ever happen. 

[RomaVicta 30508]

On 6/21/2020 at 9:21 PM, Bama Chick said:

Full view of the Teddy Roosevelt statue -

Smithsonian description:

Quote

Roosevelt is depicted on horseback as both hunter and explorer. He is flanked by the figures of two guides, one Native American and one African, meant to symoblize the continents of America and Africa. The Native American figure is striding forward wearing a feather headdress, moccasins and a long sarong around his waist. The African figure is striding forward with a cloth draped over his proper right shoulder and a gun in his proper right hand. Roosevelt grasps the reins of his horse in his proper left hand and reaches back with his proper right hand as if to grab the gun which he wears in a holster around his waist

It took me awhile to "get" what's insulting about this. The non-whites are guides. I thought this was possibly actual political correctness where something is condemned even though it's actually harmless. I looked a little longer at this view of the statue.

Duh. White man on horseback heroically advancing into new territory that is the home of the guides. It's a bad look. I like TR so I was slow on the uptake. Wonder what else I'm missing with my casual white man glance.

This statue seems like a candidate for a museum. Compare the quality to the statues of Ricky and Earl at DKR. The statue's history and shifting meaning is also worth memorializing. I feel the same way about the heroic statuary of the Soviet Union. They're interesting and there is something to learn from them.

[VRHorn 731]

40 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Michael Harriot would have the same counterargument if you replaced "statute" with "white people"

You pretty clearly don't follow him - you should, he's a great follow.

[otisdog 365]

10 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Stone Mountain Park officially opened on April 14, 1965 – 100 years to the day after Lincoln's assassination.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure....

[FondrenRoad 4378]

22 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

The Man in the High Castle just did that storyline. Show it to DOTUS and he might spaz out.
 

If we didn't tear down that gift from France in the freedom fries era, we aren't gonna do it now.

I am sure Trump wants his own giant statue somewhere. Does he have one yet?

[Jive Turkey 12930]

4 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Now that's interesting.

Why stop at removing a statue of him? 

Why not rename the school?  Like that will ever happen. 

Yeah, I find this fascinating. The school was founded by a slave owning racist. If taken to its logical extreme, people should be wanting the school to shut down. This isn’t about a statue. This is about the institution itself. But nobody is going that far. 
 

 

[Dnaguy 12579]

40 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

I wouldn't want to get in a verbal fight with this guy. He comes prepared and can deliver an ad-hoc speech much better than I could.  If he went after me, I would soon wave a white flag.

 

100% this. I know BLM isn't about whether confederates were traitors or not but no one should be on the side of honoring them. That should be minimum bar. There isn't much to celebrate about Confederate leaders. Maybe they were nice to their dog or did something good before the civil war. Who cares.

 

[David Attenborough narrating]

While sometimes confused in the wild due to their similar appearance, a 'Connie' is a wholly different creature than a Karen.

She is perfectly happy to live off the bounty created by the higher order Karen predator as a scavenger.

While Karen might call the police or get a manager as an ambush predator, the Connie lies in wait.

She has incredible stamina and can either out-wait or outlast her prey. They become tired and she ultimately feasts.

Karens will defend themselves ferociously while the Connie runs and hides.

This is why the Connie has been so successful.

It is hard to eliminate such a ubiquitous but elusive creature... much like the cockroach.

[Fuck Tim Beck 3892]

5 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Yeah, I find this fascinating. The school was founded by a slave owning racist. If taken to its logical extreme, people should be wanting the school to shut down. This isn’t about a statue. This is about the institution itself. But nobody is going that far. 
 

 

Yale too. But too many famous alumni so we will hear nothing about it.

[SimonBolivar 11040]

3 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Yeah, I find this fascinating. The school was founded by a slave owning racist. If taken to its logical extreme, people should be wanting the school to shut down. This isn’t about a statue. This is about the institution itself. But nobody is going that far. 
 

 

Judge Baylor was a Conferderate judge when he retired (couldn't find if he owned slaves), Sam Houston owned slaves, Stephen F Austin owned slaves, Mirabeau Lamar owned slaves. There might be quite a few schools looking to change names in the state.

[workswithseed 2201]

17 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Judge Baylor was a Conferderate judge when he retired (couldn't find if he owned slaves), Sam Houston owned slaves, Stephen F Austin owned slaves, Mirabeau Lamar owned slaves. There might be quite a few schools looking to change names in the state.

We'll at least get to keep the Name Texas. Also Abilene Christian is looking safe.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

34 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Stone Mountain Park officially opened on April 14, 1965 – 100 years to the day after Lincoln's assassination.

 

23 minutes ago, otisdog said:

Just a coincidence, I'm sure....

To be fair, they had been trying to get it done since the 1910s, but financing was a shitshow, and the beginning of the original work was even blasted off at some point.  

But to also be fair, what actually got it done was pure racism. It was taken over and funded by racist state government in direct response to Brown v BoE.  It was to be a momument with racist intent in the 1910s.  It became a monument with ONLY racist intent in the 50s/60s.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Judge Baylor was a Conferderate judge when he retired (couldn't find if he owned slaves), Sam Houston owned slaves, Stephen F Austin owned slaves, Mirabeau Lamar owned slaves. There might be quite a few schools looking to change names in the state.

Don’t forget Sul Ross out in Alpine. Texas State system going to be down to 1 school.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

41 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Judge Baylor was a Conferderate judge when he retired (couldn't find if he owned slaves), Sam Houston owned slaves, Stephen F Austin owned slaves, Mirabeau Lamar owned slaves. There might be quite a few schools looking to change names in the state.

Baylor was named after a shithead, but the university itself has arguably done more to damage the name with the things it allows to occur in its athletic department.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

Don’t forget Sul Ross out in Alpine. Texas State system going to be down to 1 school.

 

Aggy generates a lot of voters.  They'll save Sul Ross in order to save their statue of him. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

Yale and Rice (far less so, of course) and the like staying named after racists/slavers and having their statues up is actually perfect, because those institutions are far more responsible for the suffering and misery of hundreds of millions globally than the backwater Southern schools who at least limit their oppression to their own regional areas.

Yale produces horror monsters that destroy nations.

Fuck Yale (and the rest of the Ivies).

[RomaVicta 30508]

2 hours ago, alincoln said:

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the protesters reflect the population of the country.  In other words, a vast majority are entirely ignorant of history and a disturbing percentage are morons.  No different than a Trump rally in that respect.

One side makes mistakes due to ignorance. Trumpists embrace ignorance to maintain their constant state of anger, hate, and fear. 

Compare the leadership: BLM has worked to manage emotions, avoid violence, and seek to improve race relations by encouraging equal treatment at the hands of law enforcement.

Trump calls both sides good people when one side is white supremecist. Trump accepts the inclusion of bad actors and encourages them. Trump supporters embrace anti-science idiocy and don't care if they put others in jeopardy, all at the behest of their leader! 

Trumpists criticize slight imperfection and error in their opposites while shrugging off gross imperfections and error and even crimes in their own side. What is the Bible saying? Something about motes and logs?

Here we are watching rigthists clutching their pearls over where will this iconoclast demonstration end. Oh dear, they won't be happy until they topple Abe Lincoln himself! That's a convenient way to dodge why they/we are cheering the destruction of our country's embrace of hagiography.

We're also seeing an unprecedented sympathy between white and black. But let's shun that and fret over details or, evidently in the case of bringing up the Holocaust vandalism, cook up some fake news. Let's consciously lay the likely acts of white fucking supremecists at the feet of BLM.

Wow. Just fucking wow. Trumpists can fuck right off.

[Asithappens 978]

1 hour ago, Jive Turkey said:

Yeah, I find this fascinating. The school was founded by a slave owning racist. If taken to its logical extreme, people should be wanting the school to shut down. This isn’t about a statue. This is about the institution itself. But nobody is going that far. 
 

 

Rice is Racist!

I can see it now.

[RomaVicta 30508]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Judge Baylor was a Conferderate judge when he retired (couldn't find if he owned slaves), Sam Houston owned slaves, Stephen F Austin owned slaves, Mirabeau Lamar owned slaves. There might be quite a few schools looking to change names in the state.

So far, I don't see persons who owned slaves as being the general target. Confederates actually rebelled and fought to maintain slavery and the accompanying degradation of the black race. Andrew Jackson devastated many tribes. 

Houston opposed secession on the national stage. I don't know a lot about Lamar and Austin. Lamar was evidently something of a dickhead although a brave soldier.

I guess my point is that we may be incorrectly anticipating who may be a target and who may target them.

[SimonBolivar 11040]

9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So far, I don't see persons who owned slaves as being the general target. Confederates actually rebelled and fought to maintain slavery and the accompanying degradation of the black race. Andrew Jackson devastated many tribes. 

Houston opposed secession on the national stage. I don't know a lot about Lamar and Austin. Lamar was evidently something of a dickhead although a brave soldier.

I guess my point is that we may be incorrectly anticipating who may be a target and who may target them.

They were both dead before Lincoln's election so they may be immune. 

[tchookem 3966]

So far, I don't see persons who owned slaves as being the general target. Confederates actually rebelled and fought to maintain slavery and the accompanying degradation of the black race. Andrew Jackson devastated many tribes. 
Houston opposed secession on the national stage. I don't know a lot about Lamar and Austin. Lamar was evidently something of a dickhead although a brave soldier.
I guess my point is that we may be incorrectly anticipating who may be a target and who may target them.

Austin had been dead for several years.

[RomaVicta 30508]

16 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

They were both dead before Lincoln's election so they may be immune. 

 

1 minute ago, tchookem said:

26 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So far, I don't see persons who owned slaves as being the general target. Confederates actually rebelled and fought to maintain slavery and the accompanying degradation of the black race. Andrew Jackson devastated many tribes. 
Houston opposed secession on the national stage. I don't know a lot about Lamar and Austin. Lamar was evidently something of a dickhead although a brave soldier.
I guess my point is that we may be incorrectly anticipating who may be a target and who may target them.

Austin had been dead for several years.

Now I don't know which of you to believe. It's all so confusing. 

Actually, thanks for responding. I was unclear in my post by not separating Houston from Lamar and Austin. I knew they were both gone prior to the Civil War.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

27 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So far, I don't see persons who owned slaves as being the general target. Confederates actually rebelled and fought to maintain slavery and the accompanying degradation of the black race. Andrew Jackson devastated many tribes. 

Houston opposed secession on the national stage. I don't know a lot about Lamar and Austin. Lamar was evidently something of a dickhead although a brave soldier.

I guess my point is that we may be incorrectly anticipating who may be a target and who may target them.

Yep.  It isnt about just being a slaveowner in the time of slavery.  It isnt even about just being a traitor.  Its about being a traitor who fought specifically to preserve slavery. There were also probably confederate generals that didn't own slaves themselves. They should not have statues either.

One could also conceive of a traitor who fights for a just cause but loses as deserving of future memorialization. Thousands of those traitors died in siberia in the 20th century, for example. The confederacy was the exact opposite of a just cause which is the larger problem with revering its leaders.

[Mdhorn 6153]

Kinda sad to see this but, he gone (George Washington bust at GWU): 

 

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=15083

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Mdhorn

[Saint Austin 776]

All of y'all saying that the war was about slavery might be interested to hear what Lincoln had to say.

[Mdhorn 6153]

Call me crazy but I kinda care more about the Republicans undermining Democracy by upsetting presidential checks and balances and suppressing voting more than a statue that really means very little to them.  It's a whole lot like the Bible in Trump's hands, just an empty symbol. He couldn't tell you his favorite scripture or even one.  

  

[HenryJames 67127]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

Rice is Racist!

I can see it now.

Not brown rice.

[SimonBolivar 11040]

47 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

All of y'all saying that the war was about slavery might be interested to hear what Lincoln had to say.

Oh lord here we go. We are all aware of Lincoln's most famous quote about freeing none of the slaves. The historical consensus is that the war is about slavery. If you read primary documents the Confederates will flat out tell you that.

 

VP Alexander Stephens:

Quote

ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

Georgia Declaration of Succession

Quote

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Texas

Quote

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Virginia

Quote

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

South Carolina

Quote

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

 Mississippi

Quote

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 are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. 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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by SimonBolivar

[bad_teammate 13482]

46 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

All of y'all saying that the war was about slavery might be interested to hear what Lincoln had to say.

All of y'all saying the war wasn't about slavery might be interested to hear what the seceding states had to say.

 

[Saint Austin 776]

And what battles were raging when Stephens delivered his Cornerstone Speech?

Also, the reasons for secession are not the same as the reasons for the war or soldiers' motivations for fighting.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

49 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

All of y'all saying that the war was about slavery might be interested to hear what Lincoln had to say.

He'd say he tried to appease the South by hemming it in rather than abolishing it outright, but the South wanted slavery so badly that they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery into new territory, and they still feared abolitionism in spite of Lincoln being a moderate on slavery. 

So it was all about slavery. Both the South's decision to secede and the North's decision to try to bring them to heel. The North, and Lincoln, refused both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment.  Both of them were intended to enshrine slavery permanently in Southern states. 

[SimonBolivar 11040]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

He'd say he tried to appease the South by hemming it in rather than abolishing it outright, but the South wanted slavery so badly that they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery into new territory, and they still feared abolitionism in spite of Lincoln being a moderate on slavery. 

So it was all about slavery. Both the South's decision to secede and the North's decision to try to bring them to heel. The North, and Lincoln, refused both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment.  Both of them were intended to enshrine slavery permanently in Southern states. 

My favorite topic is Southern eyes on invading Spanish Cuba to make it a slave state. We were so close to having a radically different country.

Edited June 23, 2020 by SimonBolivar

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

And what battles were raging when Stephens delivered his Cornerstone Speech?

Also, the reasons for secession are not the same as the reasons for the war or soldiers' motivations for fighting.

What do soldier motivations matter?  The war was started by and the monuments are made to politicians and generals.  The average nazi grunt was just fighting for Germany and the soldiers next to him too.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

From my understanding, the Civil War, from the Confederacy perspective was about white supremacy, rooted in patriarchy and Christianity.  

To them, the North was going to destroy their America, the one founded by and for Christian white men and their domination via slavery.

I found it difficult to believe you were going to find a bunch of whites to fight to the death to keep people as property, but tell them the white male dominated America they believed in was under attack, and they would line up to fight. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Saint Austin 776]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

He'd say he tried to appease the South by hemming it in rather than abolishing it outright, but the South wanted slavery so badly that they seceded because they were unable to expand slavery into new territory, and they still feared abolitionism in spite of Lincoln being a moderate on slavery. 

So it was all about slavery. Both the South's decision to secede and the North's decision to try to bring them to heel. The North, and Lincoln, refused both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment.  Both of them were intended to enshrine slavery permanently in Southern states. 

You are confusing the reasons for secession and the reasons for war. However, it's interesting that you reference the Crittenden Compromise and Corwin Amendment. While Lincoln did oppose the Crittenden Compromise, he approved of the  Corwin Amendment. In fact, in his first inaugural he stated:

Quote

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

If anything, Lincoln's approval of the Corwin Amendment and the seceded states' decisions to remain out of the Union only furthers the argument that the war was more about Southern independence than slavery.

[RomaVicta 30508]

1 hour ago, Saint Austin said:

All of y'all saying that the war was about slavery might be interested to hear what Lincoln had to say.

Neither side could say the war was about slavery out loud because they couldn't count on common soldiers fighting to protect rich slave owners (South) or for negroes (North). I recall this from reading the first part of Battlecry of Freedom, a book I couldn't continue because reading about all the American deaths over such an issue was too depressing.

Lincoln's thinking and oratory changed over the course of his term both as required by political timing (Emancipation Proclamation) and his increasing respect for blacks (his acquaintance and friendship with Frederick Douglas). I picked this up from the fine book, A Team of Rivals (Kearns) which Trump's press secretary so inaptly cited recently.

[SimonBolivar 11040]

3 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

You are confusing the reasons for secession and the reasons for war. However, it's interesting that you reference the Crittenden Compromise and Corwin Amendment. While Lincoln did oppose the Crittenden Compromise, he approved of the  Corwin Amendment. In fact, in his first inaugural he stated:

If anything, Lincoln's approval of the Corwin Amendment and the seceded states' decisions to remain out of the Union only furthers the argument that the war was more about Southern independence than slavery.

What was the point of Southern independence? Slavery.