Contents of Hunley museum could be an issue

I have no hero complex with Davis either. Politicians started the war. But the common people comprising the bulk of the Southern army felt they were truly defending their homes. I sympathize with their plight.

Who found the Hunley? Clive Cussler, of Phoenix. We should have the Hunley in Phoenix.

Cussler's novels are great.

I suppose that there were material advantages and a degree of wealth here in America that even slaves to some small degree benefited from and that provided even slaves something that Chinese peasants or Indian untouchables didn't have, but it doesn't follow that, "taken in historical context slavery in America was downright civilized compared to the rest of the world."

It may be refreshing sometimes to think that slaves in America may have had advantages that those in other forms of bondage in other countries didn't have, but that can become a distorting viewpoint if one doesn't compare the conditions of slaves here with freemen in the same country. So yes, sometimes we might benefit by comparing the condition of slaves here with those of peasants elsewhere, but that is also only a partial picture.

And we may not always conclude that the slaves were better off. The answer isn't always clear. Irish or Norwegian or Polish or Ukranian peasants suffered mightily in the 19th century, but they were probably still happy about the nominal freedom they possessed -- if only for the freedom to leave. If it's the case that slaves were happier than Chinese or Indian peasants or lower castes, it may be because they lived in a richer society or because the slaves still developed a consciousness of freedom, in spite of all that had been done to them. Does this mean that it's good to be a slave in a rich society, rather than a serf in a poor one? And while America can take some comfort in promoting the idea of freedom that eventually overthrew slavery, surely it's no cause for complacency. If Brazil or Cuba offered greater opportunities for mulattos does that mean that slavery there was benign or North American slavery more condemnable than otherwise? And Africans or American Indians with their shorter lifespans and lower "quality of life," surely preferred their own lives to being slaves (though some of those Africans were quite willing to make other slaves).

I can understand the anger many have against those who want to put slavery at the centerpiece of every Civil War museum. It does look extreme and unnecessary, but when you look at some of the notions that develop when people ignore the role of slavery, it's understandable that some what to put the emphasis firmly on slavery. African-Americans felt like they were cut out of American history for a century and longer with serious consequences for their treatment during the period, so it's natural that they don't want this to happen again.

But I have to wonder what people are really arguing about. If I remember my childhood visit to Gettysburg right, there was always one display on slavery, which people didn't make much fuss either way about. I don't know if Southern museums followed such a practice then, but they must by now. The question today seems to be adding a few more exhibits on slavery that people will likewise ignore.

Very reasoned and balanced as most of your posts are. I find little to object with.

I think your mention of those men being in the CSS HUNLEY's museum is a farce. The names of those men are already enshrined in the Navy Memorial, whereas I don't think the crew of the CSS HUNLEY is mentioned at all. The HOUSATONIC was a casualty of war ... too bad. But it didn't achieve a first, nor was it fighting for freedom. In fact your responses to this thread indicate a "sour grapes" attitude to me.

But it didn't achieve a first, nor was it fighting for freedom.

Well it was the first ship sunk by a submarine. Without it Dixon and his men's claim to fame would be as the third crew to go down with the Hunley. As for fighting for freedom, it was fighting against an illegal rebellion.

"it was fighting against an illegal rebellion".

Wrong answer Chuck! Seeing as how America defined its beliefs in the Declaration of Independence - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just (meaning limited) powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.'

It wasn't illegal, it was their RIGHT! Just because you don't agree with their reasons, that still doesn't make it illegal. Of course then we wouldn't want to accuse you of being a blind loyalist now would we?

"If ye desire wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude more than the animating contest for freedom ... go in peace. We seek neither your arms nor your counsel. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and ay posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

It wasn't illegal, it was their RIGHT!

I was wrong to classify the rebellion as illegal because you're absolutely right when you pointed out that people have the innate right to rebel when they feel that they have been wronged and have no other recourse. On the other hand, the Union was within their rights to try and stop the rebellion since they thought that the southern states were acting improperly and in order to protect the country that the founding father's bequeathed to them. And for you to claim that the south was fighting for freedom is a bit disingenuous because the North was fighting for the same thing.

'On the other hand, the Union was within their rights to try and stop the rebellion since they thought that the southern states were acting improperly and in order to protect the country that the founding father's bequeathed to them.'

The Union was being misled by propaganda created by the big money businesses in New York and the government in Washington. Because the South wanted to create its own free trade zone and not pay tariffs to Washington, the big businesses in the North East were in danger of being ruined financially. Lincoln wanted, as well as the big money men of Wall Street, for protective tariffs to be paid. This wasn't Constitutional nor was it what the Founder's envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. The Yankee traders felt the South was too powerful economically and could only stand to gain a more advantageous economic position if they were allowed to brake away. The myth of "country & patriotism" is always what the government feeds its citizens when it needs them to become cannon fodder. Like it or not, its true.

And for you to claim that the south was fighting for freedom is a bit disingenuous because the North was fighting for the same thing.

Wrong again Chuck! The Southern States were fighting for the freedom of self-determination of their own futures (hint ... it was one of the most important gifts to be bequeathed to us by the Founders), the North on the other hand went to War to "Preserve the Union" ( a polite euphamism for forcibly subjugating one set of people to the will of another) ... Not what the Founder's had in mind. The bottom line of the American belief was that Individual Liberty was paramount! Yes a certain amount of liberty was handed over when the States agreed to abide by the rule of Law (i.e. the Constitution) however, the Constitution (key word) *limited* what powers the government had, the States still reserved all other powers to themselves and could withdraw from the Union if they felt that the government no longer was serving in their best interests. The North latched onto slavery as the Trojan Horse for carrying out its war of aggression, the Southern states seceded for the right to determine their own futures, and their own domestic affairs ... free from interference by Northern States! The US Constitution was a compact or an agreement of the original 13 colonies, but each state still retained its sovereignty! The 13 colonies banded together for the common good, but that didn't mean that they surrendered their self-determination. Its in the name of the country The United States of America ... not just America. The reason it was set up that way by the Founders was so the government and the States were supposed to keep each other in check, thereby preventing tyranny! Read up on your Washington and Madison and Jefferson, their writings and ideals. It is from Jefferson that most of our beliefs were drawn! Look at who really runs the government now ... Corporate America! Lincoln started that when he pandered to the special interests of Wall Street in 1861. I will recommend a book to you to read ... it is called 'The American Ideal of 1776 - Twelve Basic American Principles' by Hamilton Abert Long. It will show that what the Founders envisioned, and what we have had since the War of Northern Aggression are two seperate things.

Now you've slipped back to ridiculous. If the tariff was such a bone of contention then why was one of the first acts of the confederate congress the imposition of a tariff, some might say a protective tariff, which imposed a tax on some items higher than the one that they left behind? Those big money men down in Richmond have anything to do with that?

The Southern States were fighting for the freedom of self-determination of their own futures

For part of their population, that is the common excuse given for the rebellion. But the real reason was so that about 65% on the population could continue to hold about 35% of the population in bondage.