Morons who believe the civil war wasn't about slavery
Here's a book for you. I know what the CW was about and I'm still going to get this. It looks like gripping stuff. I wonder how the manuscripsts were recently discovered. An interesting tale itself no doubt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/bo...ks&oref=slogin |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's interesting that "United States" was still a plural noun before the civil war. It seems as though the civil war accomplished much more than freeing the slaves, regardless of its causes.
|
Quote:
|
K-Dog, you should know me well enough to expect that I accept the Union perspective as gospel.
Here's a different, more interesting question. In terms of preserving the union, are the northern states any better off for having won the Civil War? Are they worse off? Clearly, the wealthiest, most educated, most productive parts of our country generally lie in the former Union states, and/or non-former slave states. I think the primary beneficiaries of the Civil War outcome were the slaves and the Confederate states. There's irony for you. The other states would be just as or more materially better off had the north just said so long southern states, or que sera sera. Which is what the London Times thought was the smart thing for them to do. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.