"Moral imperatives?" "Freedom Fighters?" Do you ride with the sociopathic John Brown in your day dreams?
The Jeffersonian leadership in the South understood that slavery was not a good system. The problem of what to do about it was very complex. But the idea that outsiders had a moral right ("freedom fighters") to come in and destroy is so absurd as to border on lunacy. Certainly, the Lincoln Administration did not claim such a basis for the war.
Since the Bible, clearly recognizes and accepts human bondage, it is difficult to understand your "moral imperative." Again, the Jeffersonians recognized the moral flaws in the system; but they also understood the moral flaws in ending it, without a clear plan for what would follow. You apparently do not understand the dilemma, but your lack of understanding does not convert into virtue.
By the way. Your posts suggest that you have no understanding of how the War actually set back the Southern Negroes. If your rant was based upon compassion for the ex-slaves, it does not show it. If you have compassion for the ex-slaves, I would suggest that you look more closely at what happened between 1865 and 1890, when South haters, such as yourself, set about trying to base society on fantasy. It was the problem, which actually developed, which deterred the Jeffersonians from actually trying to end slavery. Deny it as you like. The history is there.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Ya know I try to point that out in the Fundamentalist threads but they all deny it. Nevertheless, most non-neanderthal versions of Christianity rejected slavery then and now.
Reconstruction ended much earlier than 1890, though Black suffrage was dying at that time. So just what was that "fantasy" that the "South haters" tried to "base a society" on? For many unreconstructed Southerners, that "fantasy" was precisely our contemporary belief in racial equality.
The destruction of the war did hurt the economic prospects of Southern blacks in comparison to what they would have been had there been a peaceful emancipation. But there was scant prospect of abolition any time soon if the Union was broken. Can one seriously argue that Confederate victory would have left the mass of Southern blacks better off than what actually happened? At the very least, Union victory and emancipation allowed the freedmen to move about and seek new employment. Even if the Confederacy had made a formal emancipation, it would probably have restricted those rights for many years to come.
You don't explain what the "problem" was or who you mean by "Jeffersonians" but your view actually makes me think less of the rebel leaders -- ready to tear up their country, enthusiastic to conquer new territories, yet frightened off by the slightest hint of abolition. The secessionists were capable of radical, decisive action when they felt it desirable and necessary.
Neo-confederatism is another branch of today's victim history, and Southern elites are turned into victims who couldn't have abolished slavery or segregation because others opposed them. Opposition is a constant condition of political life, not an excuse for inaction.
The war was a great tragedy, and neither side fully had the commitment to liberty or civic equality that we expect today. But there was no shame in supporting the Union cause, and we're better off today than we would hve been with a Confederate victory.