Confederate History Month

[CaptainHaplo]

Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government.

So the rich and powerful were only to be found in the CSA, while the North was run by paupers who only had the welfare of the people in their hearts and minds? Things are rarely that black and white - and a look at history shows that your idealism in viewing that time frame is misplaced.

The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

It is often said that the Civil War was a war that tore apart families - not only due to the deaths and injuries - but because it pitted brother against brother due to the ways people saw things. This idea that "the rich" had everyone snookered is further demonstration that you have swalled a revisionist version of history.

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

You seem intent on your view regarding slavery. So answer the questions that have already been posed - if the issue was slavery, why did the North continue the practice of slavery after the war began? If it was over slavery - the North would have stopped said practice - and it did not. Secondly - why is it the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the states and areas that were rebelling against the Union (Federal) government, yet kept slavery as a legal institution in the "Northern" states?

At first glance, your view on slavery as being a "North/South" issue would appear to be flawed given historical facts. Care to try and explain this discrepency?

At first glance, your view on slavery as being a "North/South" issue would appear to be flawed given historical facts. Care to try and explain this discrepency?

Thats easy, only some in the North had accepted the flawed world view that god had decided the negroes were really human, so the union had to keep these scientific people on board by agreeing the blacks were meant to be slaves as it is ordained that a negro shall be inferior to a white man.
Come to think of it the Confederates really were the strict constitutionalists.
After all the constitution is based on the ideals of the declaration and the notion is that all men are equal and have inalienable rights like liberty, and as all men are equal and only white free males really count then it goes without saying that non whites certainly ain't human or they would be free

CaptainHaplo wrote

So answer the questions that have already been posed - if the issue was slavery, why did the North continue the practice of slavery after the war began? If it was over slavery...

The issue for the Federal Government in Washington was not slavery in the beginning but the issue for the South was Abolition from day-one. Without slavery there would have been no radical abolitionist movement that so enraged Southern politicians so you are standing your strawmen on their heads.

Do you really believe that abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner was beaten near to death on the floor of the United States Senate by slave-holding South Carolina representitive Preston Brooks over tariffs or states rights?

The Brooks-Sumner incident is indicative of the violence resulting when the subject of abolition was broached in the presence of the slave-holding Southern gentry.

[nikimcbee]

Good post Steve.

...and now for something completely different.

Another interesting subject was the state of the CSA economy, or better to say, lack there of. I don't remember how long it took, before the CSA currency was worthless and they just started printing more money. Economically, the South didn't stand a chance. The North, around 1863ish started running out of money and quite litterally was taxing everything to fund the war effort.