BTW, I've started reading Shelby Foote's 2,976 page history of the Civil War and it is fascinating reading. Barne's & Noble has in stock this work in three separate volumes.
As well, I've been viewing Ken Burn's DVD's on the Civil War on my new 60" HDTV. It's an awesome documentary even though Ken Burn's is an horse's ass in person and PBS sucks.
I was recently in Alabama and talked to some folks about the Civil War. The ill feelings still lingers on even to this day.
As a "Yankee" I must say that I respect both sides of the conflict. The Confederates thought they were doing the right thing by seceding from the Union and the Union thought they were doing the right thing by fighting to preserve the Union.
Personally I am just glad that the Union is back together again as I love the Southland and would hate to have to go through customs to visit it.
At least 600,000 people died to keep people from going through customs. Seems fair to me.
"BTW, I've started reading Shelby Foote's 2,976 page history of the Civil War and it is fascinating reading. Barne's & Noble has in stock this work in three separate volumes.
As well, I've been viewing Ken Burn's DVD's on the Civil War on my new 60" HDTV. It's an awesome documentary even though Ken Burn's is an horse's ass in person and PBS sucks."
Shelby Foote's works are great reading....the only problem is all three volumes are very heavy, and it literally wears you out trying to read them on a couch......LOL!
I received the Ken Burns "set" as a gift when it first came out in VHS. I've been waiting to purchase it on DVD.
Personally, I like nothing better than a good Civil War debate.
As for this passionately written yet very misguided article, I have two quick comments:
(1) Of course this war was fought, in no small part, over money (real/threatened witholding of cotton from Europe to force recognition and intervention, wage versus slave labor, etc.). I believe that there is an economic cause for every conflict and an economic solution to most problems, so that's my built-in bias (FYI).
(2) It's irrelevant in a sense what each side was fighting for during the conflict itself because, in an overarching sense, an end result was a fundamental transformation in the way this country saw itself. To paraphrase Shelby Foote, we went from referring to "the United States are..." to "the United States is...". The threat of having to share this continent with European powers was extinguised (sure, European imperialism in North America was on the wane anyways by then, but don't think for a second that a recognized Confederate States of America would not have served as a proxy for European influence here on the continent and, as a result, a destabilizing presence for the Union/North), and the distictiveness of the United States and it's form of government in comparison to the European powers was set in stone.
The author does not address this "larger context" in which the War must be considered. The American Civil War was as necessary a conflict as any in human history for it helped to settle some fundamental questions about the nature and direction of our form of government, questions that had to be adderssed peaceably or, as it turned out, by force.
To suggest otherwise is to be self-delusional and willfully ignorant.
I doubt he really knows anything about Cesar's Gallic War or that, at a crass level, most wars are fought over money (control of resources).
bump
Well, we tried. But we just have to settle fer makin' you yankees eat grits.
I don't get this guy's point though. It's fascinating history.
I wonder what type of reaction I would get here if I said the Civil War could also be called "The Southern War to Preserve and Promote Slavery"? I wonder...
Here is a good account of the Civil War by my Great Grandfather. It is a short account only about 20 pages but reveals a lot.
http://metalab.unc.edu/docsouth/sherrill/sherrill.html
Thanks to the Reconstruction Era.
Queenan's just trolling.