(11-07-2018, 10:38 AM)mikesez Wrote: (11-07-2018, 09:47 AM)Kane Wrote: C'mon man...
Firstly, let me go ahead and get this out of the way. Slavery is and was obviously very wrong.
However... it was well within their rights, no matter what the reasoning for it at the time. Outside of slavery (which was ONE issue) It was much more about government kinda over reaching, as it often does.
Lincoln was not THEIR president (man that sounds familiar) and they (the democrats) did what was well within their rights. The Union then decided to wage war (kinda a Republican thing to do I guess) and force a certain way of life on people.
Now... in hindsight, the Union was right to want to abolish slavery. But at the time they essentially broke the law and started a war for what we now perceive as the right thing. Lincoln was no angel however as I said... it really was more about those with money and power wanting more of it. (and with a lot of bloodshed got it)
Just to be clear... just trying to clarify how history actually went down instead of the cookie cutter crap they feed you in grade school.
Not trying to say "The South should have won, we will rise again!"
You can not say that for fact.
The South could have tried to secede based simply on the election of a Republican POTUS that they hadn't even put on most of their ballots
The government has been screwing up and waging war on itself for the entirety of its existence we just do it with less bloodshed.
You're talking yourself in circles. You're trying to say that the election of Lincoln was not that different than any other election where one particular region didn't get its way. But it was different, obviously. Usually the one region that feels disappointed doesn't feel so disappointed that they want to secede. So the South's disappointment was on a different level, and it was all to do with slavery.
You seem to want to apologize for the South in this case, perhaps because you feel a personal connection. Comfort yourself in this: most white people in the South did not own slaves and did not benefit tangibly from the labor of slaves. Most white people in the South could not vote. They did not get any choice about whether their neighbors would own slaves, and did not get any choice about whether their state would secede. Their lives sucked. The only benefit most Southern whites got from African slavery was an enhanced sense of self-worth that there were men down the road who had an even rougher life than them.
What??
How did you get all that from what I said?
Talking in circles... not at all, just wanted to clarify the position I was taking, which was not one of pro-south or pro-slavery which is where this board is likely to place someone who says "the civil war was not all about slavery"
History is what it is. How it is taught in public schools is one often trimmed up to the federal government's liking. Like how most of Chris Columbus lessons are about his "discovery of America".
Apologize for the South? Why would I do that...?
As I've already said before, this war was much more about rich whites vs poor people and control of cash crops than the slavery itself. And yes, the rich whites in the south wanted to keep their free labor.
Lincoln was talking about drastically changing the way people did things, they didn't like it, they didn't vote for him, and they seceded when he won.
And it was well within their rights to do so.
Period.
Technically speaking... I believe states still have that right, though the federal interstate system surely makes it difficult (among many other things) for states to do so.
