wylde007 wrote:The South went to war as a means of DEFENSE.
Yes, a defense against the specific "state right" to own other human beings. The plantation owners, who ran Southern state governments, were explicitly clear about that.
It could consequently be argued that Lee's foray into the north helped turn yankee sentiment against Dixie. Up until then their lands and homes had never been in the line of fire.
Rich agriculturalists did not coerce hundreds of thousands of Southron to go off to war. We wanted to be let alone to govern freely. War was the last thing we wanted.
Poppycock. Rich plantation slaveowners did exactly that. Just about every poor white Southerner knew good and well that, despite their lower station, they were above every black person. Rich white Southerners perpetuated this mindset to keep "the masses" of other whites on their side, to preserve "their way of life." I'm glad it's gone forever, and that my black ancestors were freed, and if it took war to do it, then SO BE IT.
I believe you profess Christianity. What if
you were the one being whipped at the hands of, say, Arab Muslims, and your wife or daughters being raped by them and nothing you could do about it? Not just some abstract white person--I mean you, Wylde, specifically, and yours. Wouldn't you want your freedom, too, by any means necessary? Wouldn't you view any symbol of that oppressive (in this fictional example, Arab Muslim) regime that allowed the whipping of your back and the raping of your wife/daughters as Evil Incarnate? Yes, you would, so don't lie and say you wouldn't. The Spanish felt that way about the Moors (hence the Inquisition) and still do today. I lived over there for two years, so I know.
That's how most black people in this country feel when they see the Confederate flag, and for those very same reasons.
It was brought to us and our men did the only honourable thing they could do when their land, homes, livelihoods and families were threatened by an invader - they took up arms to DEFEND those things which they held dear.
Naturally. Gotta keep those "N-words" in their place, right? That's why the KKK and many other similar vigilante groups, often supported by and even accompanied by the sherrifs, targeted blacks and those who supported their equal rights, eh? That's why we had the "black codes" enacted all throughout the South, doing among other things, making firearm ownership by blacks illegal (a major 2A violation), eh?
Don't believe me? The intro paragraph of the below link sums it up nicely.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/11cd-reg.pdf
Lincoln wanted to preserve the TAX BASE which was paying for northern industrial interests and development. The "union" was just the buzzword he chose to belay the truth.
I'm sure that was a factor, probably a big one. Money, a tool of power, always is. He clearly would've preserved the Union without abolishing slavery if he could have. The record is indeed very clear on that.
In fact, many Southron wanted to preserve the CONSTITUTIONAL union as written, but Lincoln's radical republicans wanted more government, more authority and more tribute paid for the "privilege" of belonging to that union. The South knew this was a direct violation of our founders' designs and wanted out.
Yes, one of the flaws in our Constitution was that it allowed slavery to continue to exist. So, strictly speaking, you are correct. It took a very bloody war to fix that Constitutional flaw, because the record is also very clear that white Southerners, rich plantation owners especially, had absolutely NO intention of giving up their ownership of other humans. To deny this is insane. As clear as the record is on Lincoln's original willingness to keep the Union together without abolishing slavery, this too is equally clear.
And these are the reasons why I'm glad the South lost the Civil War.
I encourage you, someday, to read John Howard Griffin's landmark book,
Black Like Me. Perhaps then you'll better understand why folks like me are glad the South lost.