It’s in depth, and perhaps reasoned - but I think he is guilty of some fundamental flaws.
His “right to invade” analogy has a lot of problems. The Nazi analogy on right to invade is simply flawed.
He also assumes it was 100% pro slave versus 100% non slave. It was not. There were slaves who fought for the South and 3 states who fought for the union were slave owning states.
It’s outside the box, and I’ll give him credit. But he’s wrong on about half of what he said.
It is my understanding that there were FIVE slave states that fought for the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey.
It also puts the lie to the claim that the war was fought to end slavery, because if that was the goal, they could have started the war with those five. The Supply lines would have been a lot shorter.
The war was fought to stop Independence from Washington D.C. and the North Eastern power corridor.
I second that!
One flaw in the present misperception is that most if not all the Southerners fought for maintaining slavery.
How many of those Southerners ever owned a single slave? Damn few! Then why would those that had no stake in slavery be willing to put both themselves and their families in such dire straits for slavery? They would not!
I say Southerners fought for Independence, independence from the Northern Aggression, by rich northerners that DID have a financial (investments in Southern plantations) stake in slave ownership and the general Northern intention to economically putting down a growingly independent South. The Union government being most interested in their waning power.
Ol Honest Abe was not hero to blacks, his plan was to ship em back.
Today’s anti-Confederate mantra is again based in the intent of quelling Southern economic independence and growing political power. The blacks today rallying against the “South” are no more than a useful idiotic pawns for the liberal powers.
That idiot boy in Charleston was very wrong in his act, but he was not wrong in his concern that many blacks are happy to terrorize anyone who opposes their personal interests. He was right to be concerned by the terrorist intent of black riots, black flash mobs, black knockout games and the race baiters that whip up black violence for their own power and enrichment.
That idiotic boy did not start the next Civil War, that will be started by liberals and their plantation lackies wrongly assuming they are freely able to now run roughshod over Southern whites.
The other day I read a lot of quotations of Shelby Foote to see what he might have said about this current flag issue. I can’t put my browser on his most appropriate quote right now but he said that states should decide how or if on public property a Battle Flag should be displayed and it should be no controversy if a majority ruled against it.
He said that in mid century there had been a resurgence of pride in the sacrifices and bravery of the Confederate soldier and the Battle Flag had been brought to prominence as a way to honor those forebears and allow southern pride. But he said that those that chose to use it turned their back as “yahoos” (his word for Klansmen and racists) appropriated the symbol and did nothing about it. He was saddened that the Battle Flag had become more the symbol and standard of the yahoos than people truly steeped in history.
He felt the controversy could have been avoided it southern pride had been stronger. He thought that the Stars and Bars had become tainted as a symbol for that reason.
That was another very interesting take.