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.
Posted on 05/25/2017 11:20:02 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876
FREEPORT THIS POLL
Freep, not Freeport...turn speelczech.
Why should conservatives fight to protect monuments to dead Democrat slave-owners? What’s next, a statue of Ted Kennedy in the Chappaquiddick town square?
At least, the majority of Confederate soldiers were not fighting to keep slavery.
Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy. This shouldn’t even be a question!!
Ted Kennedy in the Chappaquiddick town square?
Its why I LOVE FREEREPUBLIC!!!
Freegards
PS when in MV in 1999 my sister and I did our Conservative duty and went around asking for Chappaquiddick tee shirts.
it was barf alert
Because after the Confederate monuments come down, the monuments for Washington, Jefferson and the other founders will be targeted next by the cultural marxists. These efforts to erase history are stalinistic.
“Besides, the Civil War was not primarily about slavery. Lincoln did that mid-war as a PR move.”
That’s odd.
Just prior to the Confederate’s attack on Fort Sumter, CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens said the exact opposite. He was clear is his statement that the secession was about slavery.
And, the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” clearly states that slavery was the primary factor for their withdraw from the Union.
Because after the Confederate monuments come down, the monuments for Washington, Jefferson and the other founders will be targeted next by the cultural marxists. These efforts to erase history are stalinistic.
You can bet on it. I wouldn’t be surprised to see calls to blow up Mt Rushmore from the SJWs.
So, South Carolina was the only state to secede....I see....
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.
They were the first state, and some other states also mentioned slavery as reason for leaving the Union.
The Northern and Southern sections of the United States developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed. All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as states rights versus federal rights.
“The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized.”
To be a bit more accurate, the South failed to adapt to changing technology.
If the south had gone “industrial”, adapting to changing technology as you suggest, the north would’ve starved to death...
I agree...Slavery WAS an issue, but NOT the main issue of the war...
What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?
A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.
In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
A key issue was states’ rights.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.
The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.
Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.
In my opinion, from history, stating the Civil War was because of slavery is a simplistic approach to a very complicated issue...
I don’t understand how you can say that slavery was not the main issue of the war, and then immediately thereafter say that it was the economics of slavery and the political control of slavery that was central to the conflict, without spraining your brain.
Civil War veterans are considered the same as any other US military veterans. This isn’t any different than removing statues of Washington because he had ideals that don’t agree with those doing the removing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.