It is all unfortunate on both sides. My mention of the confederate mistreatment of southerners is to disprove any moral superiority of the reb cause and to try to deflate what I see as the pretensions and myths of the CSA, but I don't mean top say that the Union conduct was perfect either.
But when war came, wickedness and suffering were released on the land. It comes down to who lit the match to start the holocaust, and legality of secession, I think it's clear was no impairment of the liberty of the southern people that warranted a dissolving of an old and good union.
It comes down to who lit the match to start the holocaust, and legality of secession, I think it's clear was no impairment of the liberty of the southern people that warranted a dissolving of an old and good union.We reach opposite conclusions. What is clear to you, is not clear to me. Hopefully, we history buffs can respectfully disagree.
My mention of the confederate mistreatment of southerners is to disprove any moral superiority of the reb cause ...By that logic, if I document mistreatment of Northerners and/or Southerners by Lincoln and the Feds, I thereby disprove any moral superiority of the Northern cause?