El Tejon,
There seem to be a few points of mine that you are intent on dodging, so why don't you address the specifically instead of making a general comment without any backing?
- If the South went to war only for slavery, why is it that the
overwhelming majority of those that went to war owned no slaves?
Would so many young men go to war against a numerically superior foe and endure 4 years of hardship so that a few rich Southern men could keep their slaves?
Why did many high ranking generals in the CSA own no slaves? Men such as:
General Robert E. Lee
General Joseph Johnston
General A.P. Hill
General Fitzhugh Lee
General JEB Stuart
I recall a letter written by an ordinary CSA infantryman "I was soldier in Virginia in the campaigns of Lee and Jackson, and I declare I never met any Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery...What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self-government"
I can dig up literally
hundreds of references just like this, if you like, so please drop the insulting and inaccurate myth that the South went to war for slavery, because it stands in obvious contrast to a multitude of historical evidence.
The facts reveal that the South attacked the North...
You mean when Lincoln garrisoned Fort Sumner, when the South was making noise about the protectionist policies of the govt? What a shame that would have been, the North would have lost their ability to juice the South via tarrifs, which is why they garrisoned the Fort, against Lincoln's word, which is why South took action. How different is that from the preemptive strike thing that Bush was trying to use in order to justify attacking Iraq?
Oh, and I'm quite intruiged at your claim that Northern intentions for the war are irrelevant, but that the South's were. So if the North invaded the South only for economic gain and political power, it's ok, because the South wanted to leave because of slavery? By that reasoning, it was ok for Hitler to invade the USSR, even if he wanted it for an Aryan playground, because the USSR was evil, and did naughty things to it's people?
The South suffered far less, despite the calls for justice and vengence from my own ancestors
So after the North tries every trick in the book to expolit the South, the South decide to exercise their right to self-determination, like the founding Fathers did, and create their own government, yet you claim the right to vengence and justice?
What if NH, sick of the nonsense the Federal government is pulling, decides to seceed, will you come over here with your guns drawn, and tell us we're not allowed to do so? Will you give your support to those that do?
The South did not invade the North, it was the other way around. Where do you get off claiming you deserve vengence? It's kinda like the Feds being angry when they bust down someone's door and wreak their house, because the Feds were wronged somehow
than any other group which betrayed its country
Again, is NH betraying the US if they decide, for whatever reason, to leave and start their own country?
thanks to the inherent mercy of the North
You mean the mass rapes, looting, attempted genocide, etc?
If you really believe that the whole thing was so black and white, that the South was pure evil and the North was a white knight in shining armor, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
