[nathanbedford]

Thomas Jackson owned no slaves, Robert E Lee manumitted his wife's slaves. Jackson was looked askance upon and regarded to be eccentric in Lexington because he conducted Sunday school classes for black children.

Both were fighting for home rule (albeit for whites) and local democracy and regarded themselves as conducting the Second American Revolution.

You might consider them the anti-globalists of their time.

[DiogenesLamp]

You might consider them the anti-globalists of their time.

And there is the truth of it. The power brokers of New York and Boston were the "Globalists" of their time period. They controlled the international trade between the US And Europe, and 3/4ths of all that trade was produced by the South.

The South leaving was going to cost them millions in lost business and revenue, and they would lose much of the economic power they then possessed.

The South could not be permitted to effectively establish a free trade zone with Europe, because this would heavily damage Northern industry, and it would take away the economic control of the Nation from New York and Boston, where it has been ever since.

And so the Empire Struck back.

[DoodleDawg]

Thomas Jackson owned no slaves, Robert E Lee manumitted his wife's slaves. Jackson was looked askance upon and regarded to be eccentric in Lexington because he conducted Sunday school classes for black children.

Thomas Jackson owned as many as 11 or 13 slaves at any given time, and was a slave owner the day he died. And while it is true that Jackson ran a Sunday school for blacks, free and slave, it was not that unusual. Southern churches saw it as one of their responsibilities to educate blacks on scripture.