|
Post by Tautamus on Jul 26, 2005 9:55:22 GMT -5
^^No, it's not that plain and simple. Most of the families didn't have slaves, and most of the soldiers didn't have slaves. Why would *they* fight for other people to have slaves? BTW, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free *all* of the slaves. hey captian!.im not talking about individual people.im talking about the people with real money who had influence in the con states.those are the people who where scared of the republican! ha.the country was divided the southern economy and way of doing business needed revamp and heavy changing.great visionaries as far back as jefferson knew this.of course it took lincoln to get it done! so many countries have tried to do what lincoln had done Unite a country set the stage for industry.the other example i can think of that kinda mirriors this is Spain and Francos vision.but he didnt come close to lincoln
|
|
|
Post by Tautamus on Jul 26, 2005 10:00:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Jul 26, 2005 23:51:22 GMT -5
The South had institutional racism. Let's not forget that. But the antebellum South also had some states where blacks could be free and even some cases where blacks owned slaves themselves. ...Property, and what could be considered as property, as well as the strength of contracts was different back then.
There's no doubt that there was a social hierarchy based on race. Successive generations of slaves. But there was an entire society at stake, and honor even in the lowest ranks of that society, which explains why slaves, on occasion, fought for the South.
Make no mistake about it. The Civil war WAS about slavery. Sure it was to "preserve the union". Just like we're not fighting Islamic-Fascism, but fighting "a war on terror".
|
|