This has already been explained to you...
Attempted explanations dont work if they are unconvincing.
and you have duly ignored the explanation.
Um. No.
I've read every post in this thread.
It is because of the force of arms of the Union and the political sagacity of Lincoln.
This is like saying the hammer and the nail are the reason why the house was built.
Christianity had nothing to do with it.
I say it did. Specifically, by virtue of the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian, most Christians did NOT own slaves, and the democratic (majority) conviction to end slavery drove the political and miilitary actions taken to end it.
Nor did democracy, because slavery was abolished by the institutions of a Republic.
You dont get to hand-wave away democracy in a space littered with terms like Political, Presidential election, Constitutional Amendment, Congressional....
Your slaveholders were all Christians and a majority of all Americans, who were mostly Christian, did not support abolition,
The majority of Christians opposed slavery.
...because its not biblical.
...though many came grudgingly to support it as a way to win the war.
No. They already supported abolition.
What was
grudgingly supported was the apparent unavoidable need for military action.
I would have been reluctant about that too.
The fact that the opponents of slavery were willing to fight and die for a cause shows how much they supported the abolition of slavery. Quite the opposite of your assertion that they grudgingly, reluctantly came to change their view.
Your view that slavery was abolished by Christianity, which advised slaves to obey their masters, is utterly unsupported and wholly idiotic,
I think your contrary view is unsupported.
...especially when it rests on technical terms like 'moron', 'idiotic' and a mistaken belief that America isn't a democracy.
It is very telling that you repeat this bullshit after having it refuted numerous times in this thread
Attempted refutations. Attempts that dont work if they are unconvincing.
....refutations which you ignored.
No, once again, I have read every post in this thread. You seem to hold to some conceited notion that if your opponent doesn't agree with you they must not have heard you.