Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Read a little real history and you'll better understand the story of the erection of these statues (and is has nothing to do with the teaching of history (other than a longer for an earlier time when blacks were still enslaved)). It's obvious from the rest of your post that you know essentially nothing about the history of the Civil War, reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.
From a southern perspective, the Civil War was indeed primarily about slavery. From the Union side, it was primarily about maintaining the Union. The South Carolina secession proclamation cited its cause as “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and an unwillingness of northern states to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act. The Mississippi proclamation stated “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” All the other written justifications from seceding states said much the same thing.
You'd be wise not to start arguing Civil War history until you're far better informed. Start by reading both Bruce Catton's and Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogies. It seems you know even less about the Civil War than you know about economics (and that's saying something). |
Um, did you even read my post? You might want to actually read what I wrote before you start you soliloquy.
I didn't state what I believed. I simply stated that there's no universal agreement.
Sometimes I think you'd argue with a doorknob if you thought it could bring you joy. In the case of some of your posts, I suspect it might actually be more entertaining to listen to a doorknob than read them.
