Here are some facts about the civil war, much was not taught in history class but more and more are becoming aware today. much of this I have read but most I learned from 2nd hand accounts, old men that were eye witnesses to what really happened in those days.
1) - slavery was not an issue, it was part of it but not why the war was fought.
It was a
highly significant reason for the secession and the war.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/
Seen in everything from the writings of the leaders of the south to the secession documents of the war to southerners in the early 1900s being shocked that some people were misrepresenting the goals (that is, misrepresenting it as
not being about white supremacy). Indeed,
one of the proposals to avoid the war involved ensuring that the south could keep their slaves - why would anyone propose that if that wasn't the main conflict here? It drew support from the south and failed because the republicans in congress voted it down.
2) the south was being bled dry by economic restrictions from the union., and they felt like they were losing their rights and freedoms as the federal government was oppressing their state rights. this was the big deal that pushed the south over the edge.
Yes, their "state rights" to
buy and own human beings. Arguing "the government is trampling my rights" is not a convincing argument when the right the government is trampling is "the right to buy and own slaves".
3) this is just a personal observation. i think there was a predetermined looting of the south. you can find this tactic over and over in history. one greedy country wants to plunder another, they push that country till they push back, then they have precedence to declare war. read the history of the Roman empire. it was no coincidence that every single thing of economic value in the south was taken over by tycoons from the north.
Some citation on any of this would be nice, as it completely contradicts the mainstream historical account. The "lost cause" mythos belongs in the same category of historical revisionism as the insistence that the Native Americans were somehow "savages" - with similar disturbing consequences for race relations.
There is a reason why so many refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression
How many scholars do? How many historians will support that view of the war? You know, given that the south seceded (nothing in the constitution allows for this) in order to try to protect the institution of slavery, and then proceeded to attack a US army outpost, I'm willing to bet it's not many.
After the War between States The South has been attacked over and over again. First it was carpetbaggers and other reconstruction characters, unfortunately with a lot of help from all sorts of scalawags...I'm not saying that the South itself is innocent, our history has a lot of flaws and we've gotten our shameful parts as well...but, the attacks on symbols are troublesome, by doing this the Southern features are slowly wiped out and the story about the war is being the story told from the north.
Uh... What? No, the story about the war is being told by
historians. People who have studied the available evidence and reached informed conclusions, plus have been trained in how to evaluate historical information. The fact that this doesn't line up with the "Lost Cause" narrative doesn't mean that the war is being revised by the winners - it means that that's where the evidence points.
Trying to stop the honoring of the confederacy and its symbology is not trying to erase southern culture. It's recognizing that what's there is not worth honoring. The soldiers who fought and died for the confederacy no more merit a memorial than the soldiers who fought and died for the Third Reich. The confederate battle flag no more belongs on state capitols than the Parteiadler belongs waving over Warsaw.
