The video says nothing about what the war was about. It, in a humorous way, shows the hypocrisy of confederate civil war reenacters. I have been to several civil war reenactment’s (went to the 150th Gettysburg re-enactment) and talk to many of them. They all talk about striving for authenticity, but until I saw this video I never realize that the confederate reenactors are missing a big piece of the authenticity. The slaves that we’re forced to accompany their masters to the army. I wonder why that is?
As far as your deluded opinions go I’ve had enough. Your myopic view of the civil war is laughable, but it’s a free country so you can continue with your tripe. Anyone who has studied the history of this country realizes that slavery was a problem from the beginning. Finally resulting in southern states rebelling after a free and fair election when a guy they didn’t like was elected. True the Union did not go to war to free the slaves, but to maintain the union. Freeing the slaves became a war aim later. But the southern fire eaters rebelled due to slavery and your twisting of facts will not change that.
I will say this though these discussions here and at other civil war sites have chained my views on the southern fire eaters. I use to despise them for attempting to destroy this country I love and served for 20+ years in the military, but I am now glad they did what they did. Because without the civil war I believe slavery would have lasted in this country well into the 20th century.
As Lincoln said in his second inaugural address;
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
No it doesn't. It shows what subsequent propagandists want to promote as the hypocrisy of confederate civil war reenacters. In that era and that culture, slavery was a given, and they didn't focus on it when their soldiers talked about why they were fighting. They talked of hearth and home, of family, of loyalty, or defending their homeland.
The hypocrisy of the Union in keeping slavery for six months longer than the Confederacy is seldom mentioned, and never made the butt of jokes, even though it is a far more glaring hypocrisy.
As far as your deluded opinions go I’ve had enough.
You've invested a lot of your life in believing that the people who you have always been told are the "good guys" really were the good guys, and you don't want to hear any proof or evidence that they were in fact the tools of despotism and empire from the same people we as conservatives are still fighting today.
People just want to believe what they want to believe, and for you to ever change, you will have to be bugged by facts that don't make any sense, the same way I was for many years.
Anyone who has studied the history of this country realizes that slavery was a problem from the beginning.
But it wasn't why the Union went to war with the South. When you remove the "slavery" reason for going to war, what do you have left? How is what is left able to justify what happened?
But the southern fire eaters rebelled due to slavery and your twisting of facts will not change that.
Here is an example of one of those facts I mentioned above, that does not make any sense. Lincoln promised them slavery. They already had slavery. The Union kept slavery all through the war. How were they going to "rebel" over slavery?
I'm untwisting the facts. You can't claim people rebelled over something they already had, and something which would have continued to be protected had they not rebelled. To claim they rebelled over this does not make any sense.
Because without the civil war I believe slavery would have lasted in this country well into the 20th century.
Well duh. This is why I say it is the height of dishonesty to ignore the fact that the Union could not legally abolish slavery, and so slavery cannot honestly be claimed as the reason for attacking the South.
You also gloss over the dubious legality of abolishing it, ignoring evidence of the Lincoln government far exceeding it's constitutional authority to do such a thing. You like the result, and so you are willing to overlook the constitutional violations necessary to do it.
Why is the constitution important when it is used to achieve a result you want, (Justifying an invasion over the claim of "rebellion") but unimportant when it goes against a result you want? (Preventing the abolition of slavery.)
Dealing with lost causers is like trying to play Chess with someone only familiar with tiddly-winks.