I think I can frame your argument based on "Sweet Home Alabama" and the passion one has to preserve that versus "Wall Street and Corporate Criminals" and the lust one has for money, power and control. To put it simply, the "good natured, passionate, fun-loving southerners" vr. the "icy cold, hard and calculating northerners". I tend to agree a bit, but I think one has to examine the cause-effect relationship that occurred AFTER the civil war and that’s way too difficult. So, a better argument would be to accurately portray the lives of African Slaves in the North vr. South BEFORE the Civil War. And hey, it was just determined that Wall Street was initially built by African Slaves. Based on the latest information, the "powers that were" decided to "work them to death (usually around 40) and buy more”, as opposed to letting them reproduce and having to pay for that expense. This gives you a good start!
A better way of responding based on the South's perspective. I think?
1) Slavery was practiced and accepted around the world before America was formed.
2) The Northern US praticed Slavery as did the South, as did the world (as some African countries still do today).
3) Leading up to the American Revolution, the Northern US had much closer ties to England, and were uncertain who to back during the revolution. The Southern rebel passion predominated and the rest we know.
4) Due to its close ties to England, the North stayed close to England’s governance and the South prospered due to it’s fertile soil, slavery, and world markets for it products.
5) Civil War. Your article claims the purpose for the war was based on the affluence of the South vrs. the greed, corruption, world governance model, elitist controlling nature of the North, lead by Lincoln, a wealthy Northerner.
6) The affect of 140 years of casting the South as the “inhumane” player in slavery and casting the North as the “good” moral guys. Predictably, the Southerners feel a bit betrayed, manipulated, misunderstood, bitter and rebellious.
With all of the movies, books, propaganda, and distortion of history, one may find that the life of the slave was better in the South (vrs. the North and the World) and that would add credence to your article.
A better way of responding based on the South's perspective. I think?
1) Slavery was practiced and accepted around the world before America was formed.
2) The Northern US praticed Slavery as did the South, as did the world (as some African countries still do today).
3) Leading up to the American Revolution, the Northern US had much closer ties to England, and were uncertain who to back during the revolution. The Southern rebel passion predominated and the rest we know.
4) Due to its close ties to England, the North stayed close to England’s governance and the South prospered due to it’s fertile soil, slavery, and world markets for it products.
5) Civil War. Your article claims the purpose for the war was based on the affluence of the South vrs. the greed, corruption, world governance model, elitist controlling nature of the North, lead by Lincoln, a wealthy Northerner.
6) The affect of 140 years of casting the South as the “inhumane” player in slavery and casting the North as the “good” moral guys. Predictably, the Southerners feel a bit betrayed, manipulated, misunderstood, bitter and rebellious.
With all of the movies, books, propaganda, and distortion of history, one may find that the life of the slave was better in the South (vrs. the North and the World) and that would add credence to your article.
Lysander Spooner bump!