Disappointed to see such virulent anti-Southern sentiment from Quintus and Truth Teller, two very intelligent guys. I think that illustrates one of the major issues surrounding the war, both then a now: regionalism and cultural differences between North and South. Slavery was only one issue that divided what had grown by 1860 to be two highly distinct societies sharing a land mass and a government. There was bound to be conflict.
Since the North won the war, they got to write the history and control the narrative. This resulted in the canonization of Lincoln, the retroactive pronouncement of the war's cause to have been abolition, and a general vilification of the South and Southerners that continues to this day. As Quintus admitted, growing up in the North he was taught that Southerners are nothing but backwards, ignorant and racist, and that there was very little good to be said about them. Then much to his surprise, upon living in the South he foud that Southerners in general are much different than Northern stereotypes would admit.
The idea that the average Yankee of the 1860s (or even Northern leadership) cared one iota for the plight of the slaves is total revisionist history. Full stop. The North can claim no moral high ground on the issue of slavery, because for the most part they were far more concerned with the economics and politics of slavery than they were its morality. The North fought the war to preserve the Union, not to eliminate slavery. The South simply wanted to break away from the Union, there was no intention by the South to take over the North or the Federal government. Indeed, this is why the very name of the war - "The Civil War" (pro-Northern bias), "The War Between the States" (neutral), "The War of Northern Aggression (Southern bias) - can be an issue of contention and disagreement. To name something is to label it, and by naming it "The Civil War" you imply that the South was fighting for control of the U.S. government. They were not. It would be like calling the American Revolution a civil war, when in matter of fact it was simply a war of secession. The founding fathers were not trying to take over the British government, they were attempting to secede and form a government of their own. This is exactly what the South attempted to do, the only difference is that they failed.
A disgusting Northern bias is revealed by anyone who says the Southern leadership should have been hanged after the war. In my mind this displays perfectly the cultural distinction between North and South, a distinction that closely tracks liberal and conservative. The Northern mentality is decidedly ruthless, vindictive and intolerant, at the same time loudly proclaiming its own virtues. It's the same mentality we see on the left today. The South, in contrast, was a patriarchal society based on respect for tradition and chivalry. The prototypical Southern gentleman of the day valued personal honor, God and family, and his motives for fighting the war were wholly to defend his home and his way of life. The idea that these men deserved to be hanged simply for the crime of losing a war is disgusting, not to mention stupid. The Northern leadership was wise enough to realize that doing so would have been counterproductive to reconstruction and reconciliation efforts.
Anyway, if anyone wants a better understanding of the War, I recommend Shelby Foote's masterful three-volume set "The Civil War": http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Volumes-...394749138/
These books feel more like a time machine than reading history. Highly recommended.
Since the North won the war, they got to write the history and control the narrative. This resulted in the canonization of Lincoln, the retroactive pronouncement of the war's cause to have been abolition, and a general vilification of the South and Southerners that continues to this day. As Quintus admitted, growing up in the North he was taught that Southerners are nothing but backwards, ignorant and racist, and that there was very little good to be said about them. Then much to his surprise, upon living in the South he foud that Southerners in general are much different than Northern stereotypes would admit.
The idea that the average Yankee of the 1860s (or even Northern leadership) cared one iota for the plight of the slaves is total revisionist history. Full stop. The North can claim no moral high ground on the issue of slavery, because for the most part they were far more concerned with the economics and politics of slavery than they were its morality. The North fought the war to preserve the Union, not to eliminate slavery. The South simply wanted to break away from the Union, there was no intention by the South to take over the North or the Federal government. Indeed, this is why the very name of the war - "The Civil War" (pro-Northern bias), "The War Between the States" (neutral), "The War of Northern Aggression (Southern bias) - can be an issue of contention and disagreement. To name something is to label it, and by naming it "The Civil War" you imply that the South was fighting for control of the U.S. government. They were not. It would be like calling the American Revolution a civil war, when in matter of fact it was simply a war of secession. The founding fathers were not trying to take over the British government, they were attempting to secede and form a government of their own. This is exactly what the South attempted to do, the only difference is that they failed.
A disgusting Northern bias is revealed by anyone who says the Southern leadership should have been hanged after the war. In my mind this displays perfectly the cultural distinction between North and South, a distinction that closely tracks liberal and conservative. The Northern mentality is decidedly ruthless, vindictive and intolerant, at the same time loudly proclaiming its own virtues. It's the same mentality we see on the left today. The South, in contrast, was a patriarchal society based on respect for tradition and chivalry. The prototypical Southern gentleman of the day valued personal honor, God and family, and his motives for fighting the war were wholly to defend his home and his way of life. The idea that these men deserved to be hanged simply for the crime of losing a war is disgusting, not to mention stupid. The Northern leadership was wise enough to realize that doing so would have been counterproductive to reconstruction and reconciliation efforts.
Anyway, if anyone wants a better understanding of the War, I recommend Shelby Foote's masterful three-volume set "The Civil War": http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Volumes-...394749138/
These books feel more like a time machine than reading history. Highly recommended.
[size=8pt]"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”[/size] [size=7pt] - Romans 8:18[/size]