willhelm....

I am a W.Va. southern moved even further South. My father was a real student of the Civil War and he favored the North's ideology. After I moved here and began to do some reading and eventually married into a *very genuine* Southern family, I learned that the issue of slavery *included* the issue of States Rights. It was bound up together.

At the time, the major debate was whether or not a State had the *right* to determine it's own democratic sovereignty....if it conformed to the Constitution as it was at that time. The *South* believed that, as the Constitution stood, it was within it's rights to maintain the institution of slavery. The evolving cultural sensitivities...

willhelm....

I am a W.Va. southern moved even further South. My father was a real student of the Civil War and he favored the North's ideology. After I moved here and began to do some reading and eventually married into a *very genuine* Southern family, I learned that the issue of slavery *included* the issue of States Rights. It was bound up together.

At the time, the major debate was whether or not a State had the *right* to determine it's own democratic sovereignty....if it conformed to the Constitution as it was at that time. The *South* believed that, as the Constitution stood, it was within it's rights to maintain the institution of slavery. The evolving cultural sensitivities of the times determined that the South had no such *right*.

Because slavery was such a major contributor to the economy of the South, it necessarily became a Constitutional issue . So the Constitution needed to be changed in order to make this issue of 'states rights' illegal. Thus the War Between the States.

I do not defend the practice of slavery. However, I recognize that it took a war to make the necessary changes in our Constitution. I believe that the North stood on the side of moral integrity and the South claimed it's sovereignty as it was then understood.

So I agree with most of the statements from your clip.

That's revisionist slant, jatfla. It would be as simple for you to just reasearch the declarations each state drafted to announce their intent to secede. The revisionism is just an attempt to make the actions of the South look somehow noble. While there may be some underlying truth to the fact that state's rights were a rallying cry. The issue was solely about defending the practice of slavery, plain and simple. It was based in the materialist and economic reasons only. I've studied the Civil War quite a bit. I live with just a couple or so miles from some of the most devastating battles. It is quite a stong interest of mine. I think it is time to recognize that the south was the "evil empir...

That's revisionist slant, jatfla. It would be as simple for you to just reasearch the declarations each state drafted to announce their intent to secede. The revisionism is just an attempt to make the actions of the South look somehow noble. While there may be some underlying truth to the fact that state's rights were a rallying cry. The issue was solely about defending the practice of slavery, plain and simple. It was based in the materialist and economic reasons only. I've studied the Civil War quite a bit. I live with just a couple or so miles from some of the most devastating battles. It is quite a stong interest of mine. I think it is time to recognize that the south was the "evil empire" if you will of that time. Their resistance to apply natural law to all humans is similar to the issues we face to day with threat of militant Islam.
There is still some residual effect of the lies you have been taught. Look at the defense of those that want to fly the Confederate flag. It is the sam as if you wanted to fly the Nazi flag. The outrage is justified. It is time for those in the South to quit pretending the actions of the South, as a whole, were noble. They were not.