Not quite.
The government of the north was no longer the government of the south, since they left, remember? It wasn’t fed vs state. It fed of the north vs fed of the south.
With caveats.
What an original line! Thanks for sharing that one. That is literally the first time this unique, original claptrap has ever been typed here. Literally. The first. And every time, it’s clever, and unique.
1 Like
Never could have happened. No country is going to tolerate another countries having armed forts inside theirs. Unless they have no hope of kicking them out. And the north would have went to war anyway, they weren’t letting them go Sumpter or no Sumpter.
Great questions.
Some of us read the reasons the southern states directly outlined in the documents they drafted directly outlining why they left.
Yes. And some of us read beyond that as well. Individual thoughts are just as enlightening–and valid. Again, I don’t think anyone is trying to dismiss that portion of it–just researching the rest as well.
There is no " the rest" without slavery.
Thank you for agreeing that the federal government won.
Not “the.” “A.”
They won a war against another nation, not individual states, which was the point.
Might makes right.
Mostly correct. There was the rest right along with slavery, and it affected individuals.
We never got a chance to see what their ultimate intentions were because the Confederates stupidly started the war.
1 Like
Yes. Pretty much. Over 32% of households in the South owned slaves. Pretty sure they were quite invested in the fight to preserve slavery.
Many who couldn’t afford slaves aspired to, as a status symbol.
And many of the rest were quite likely spooked about the idea of blacks, who outnumbered whites in their states, suddenly being free and were happy to fight to preserve the status quo of their society.
Typically, the next argument is that many blacks fought alongside the Confederacy. 
Fingers crosses that we won’t go there.
You make an interesting point.
Bombing civilians in the middle east affects individuals. Dead US citizens who had been found guilty of no crime, killed by the people paid to protect them, affect individuals. Confiscating personal property because “it’s suspicious” and never returning it affects individuals.
There were individuals in tiny countries in Asia who were only killing US soldiers because US soldiers invaded their country.
Perspective.
At the end of the day, we can look back and understand that the mid 1800s had different realities than today, but that doesn’t mean that we have to look back TODAY and reverently honor emblems or generals of a nation that, at the end of the day, was fighting for the right to own another person.
A statue of Lee in town square is not necessary to remember that history, or to honor the heritage of the INDIVIDUALS. The flag most closely associated with the LOSING NATION in a war shouldn’t need to be flown on government property alongside the official flag and the state flag in order to honor the INDIVIDUALS who fought in it.
Regardless of how you want to spin this as a “democrat v republican issue”, it shouldn’t even be controversial to remove memorials and emblems of a nation that:
-does not exist, and lasted less time than The Beatles were together as a band
-whose existence would have maintained the institution of slavery
from government buildings and public property in a nation that generally agrees that individual freedom and liberty are pretty damned important. As I’ve said dozens of times, the very fact that this is controversial shows us that we haven’t come as remotely far toward healing the wounds of slavery and Jim Crow as we thought we did.
I’m liking your post, because at least you had the decency to let me know you were just winging it from the get-go.
1 Like
They didn’t fire the first shot but they knew full well sending a fleet there would necessitate it be fired. So yes, I think their intentions were clear. Change the circumstance to the revolutionary war and it will be clearer. Would we have allowed the British to occupy and reinforce a fort on US soil after declaring our independence? Of course not.
Meaning 68% did not…
I already stated I did not want that.
Then why was it?
Shrug. I did not know they were being “reverently honored.” History being acknowledged is quite different than being reverenced. Something about those not remembering history are doomed to repeat it.
