The Confederacy was formed over states' rights. It was based on lifestyle, values and belief system. Its "way of life" became sacred to its adherents. Everything of the South became a moral question, commingling love of things Southern. Not only did national political parties split, but national churches and interstate. Families as well divided along sectional lines as the war approached. To say it was all a matter of slavery is both partisan and foolish. Brothers fought against and killed each other over this tragedy all because the north was aggressive in its politics to the point of making slaves out of the southerners as federal policies favored northern over southern economic interests. To this day it should be held that the federal government should not pick winners and losers. Helping a sector out in order to prevent other sectors from falling is one thing, but picking one sector to succeed over another based on politics isn't right. This is exactly what was going on. In a way it was 19th century earmarks. A century and a half later, I am one who holds the good fight to eliminate earmarks in order to prevent such travesties. The south wanted to have freedom because the north treated the south like second class citizens. I'm sure if those today who blurt out that the Civil War was about slavery knew what it was like to be treated like a second class citizen, they would wise up and appreciate the truth of history which was that the south was attacked by a viscous neighbor. Also how nationalistic are those who fought or would have fought for the Yankee states during the Civil War? The U.S. Constitution can be abandoned at any time by any state which chooses to do so. Across the world, the Confederacy was seen as a serious attempt at nationhood. Had the south won, international conflicts and even Hitler could've been stopped before the United States waited until it was politically convenient to become involved. Was it so much to ask for the south to ask for liberty from an oppressive government of oppressive policies towards them? All they wanted was their freedom. It was right for slavery to end though.
What were the federal policies that favored Northern over Southern interests? The fact that in the 1850's, Democratic "doughboys" were twice elected over anti-slavery candidates? Was it the election of two Southerners in the 1840's, one that managed to drastically expand the union and make way for slavery to flood into places like Texas? And do you consider it responsible statesmanship to merely allow your country to dissolve at will, especially after what was in obvious reaction to the most recent election? The South by-and-large supported the winning candidate in the last six of eight elections, and it was the Supreme Court that attempted to expand the Southern way of life North, not the opposite, through
Dred Scott. But oh, should a Northerner in a Northern party win election, the losers have the right to merely leave the group, no matter what those in the North--New England in general was on the losing side of elections before 1860--think after each of the previous elections. How is democracy to function if anyone who doesn't like the result merely leaves?
Poll
