It was totally about slavery. My only point has been that there were generals such as Lee and Jackson who would have gone along with Lincoln had he not invaded Virginia.
Well doesn't that indicate to you that - at least for those two - it was about government intrusion on states' rights, and not slavery?
What precisely does that mean? How would they have gone along with Lincoln? Virginia had already seceded. Are you suggesting Lee and Jackson would have renounced their automatic Confederacy citizenships?
You are aware that Lee was offered Grant's job before Grant right? You are also aware that Lee turned that job down because of the possibility that he would be forced to invade his home correct? The war was about slaves, for some people it wasn't it was about an overreaching federal government invading southern states.
Yes, but we're not talking about why Lincoln invaded. We're talking about why these generals fought against the Union. I see your reply to @Rex, and you sure seem to be saying for Lee and Jackson, it was not about slavery. So isn't it conceivable that a great many other people felt the same way?
I'm saying the war was about slavery without slavery none of it happens. And yes I'm sure there were numerous people who weren't fighting over slaves. Let's say we were alive then and we were of the same social and monetary status we are today. Middle class, and didn't own slaves. You think I would go die so a bunch of rich assholes could have someone else clean their clothes or cook them food, plow their fields? Fuck no I wouldn't, fuck them. Would you? Now would I fight if Mississippi invaded Louisiana, I'd shoot the fuck out those bastards and I wouldn't care what the reason was for the entire debacle my only reason needed would be invasion. Not to mention, the Union Army confiscated land, stole food, raped and pillaged Southerners homes. A lot of this stuff was illegal according to Lincoln under the Leiber act and 450 union troops were prosecuted but still, how many weren't? So I think we actually agree, but at the same time I am under no illusions that without the stain that is slavery the Civil War doesn't happen.
I guess it's different for everybody. I find the people in California to be pretty rude but when I'm in the South, people are extraordinarily polite, friendly, and talkative. I don't think anybody would deny that as an explorer, he probably didn't have a lot of respect for indigenous peoples that he came across. I don't think anybody is proposing him for sainthood. But it's absolutely ridiculous to deny his role in introducing the Americas to Europe. I suppose it's only a matter of time before we come up with a new name for Washington DC, as in District of Columbia. There are over 150 statues of Columbus around the United States. There are countless cities, schools, and streets named after him. I mentioned the dearth of leadership from the President all the way down to local city councils but I had no idea that city council idiocy would show itself quite this fast. The city council member there in New York and paid by American taxpayers should remember that she represents a city in America. Her heritage through the Caribbean should take no part in doing her job. Trying to apply today's standards and considerations to people who lived one, two, ,three centuries ago or more is absolute lunacy. Under a microscope, is there any statue in America today that would be allowed to remain?
I think this is as fair and objective an interpretation of the times as I've read on this board. Well done.
