Irishtom29
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Location
- Wheaton Illinois
I don’t hear modern Southerners defending slavery but I hear them defending their ancestors defense of slavery.
People all over the North had slaves at some point.
IMO, there are not northern lies and southern lies. There is a dispassionate side that either doesn't care at all, or if they do care, wants an accurate history of the Civil War. And then there is an emotionally-invested side that wants a southern slanted history of the Civil War.
What are these supposed northern lies? That the northern states went to war to free slaves? If anyone on this forum has ever made the argument that abolitionism, rather than a desire to preserve the Union, was the primary reason the northern states went to war, I've yet to see it.
Thanks OBJ!
Slavery was not illegal then. as awlful as slavery was, the United States did nothing before 1860 to help get rid of it.To much money involved.I don’t hear modern Southerners defending slavery but I hear them defending their ancestors defense of slavery.
This has been my experience as well. That's how it was taught in school (my generation), or at least that's what I took from it. To the average person on the street, the ACW was about, The Virtuous Yankee freeing the slaves, from the evil, racist, Southerners.That the North went to war to free the slaves is a common belief in American society. I used to believe it myself. The members of this forum are a cut above the general population when it comes to historical knowledge, but I suspect in a minority.
CWT is a great place to learn more, or expand one's horizons on the subject.
That everyone is so skeptical of opposing views, forces us all to dig deeper. I remember a thread not too long ago where Bee said, "Sour grapes make the best wine". She was right.
True, Union Blue. My point is that those at the North (for the most part) really didn't care about slaves.
To say otherwise is to misrepresent history.
The law that set up the Northwest Territory in 1787 made slavery illegal in the Territory.
@Drew ,
And I agree.
When the war began, the North was all about restoring the Union.
But there can be no denial, no deflection, that the slaveholding South began the war over the issue of slavery.
Only when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation did the North undertake the abolishment of slavery as a war aim.
I get it. It is not hard to understand or accept.
So why is it?
Unionblue
There are already threads on this topic.
Ehh......to indicate there is no need to create a new thread when there are old ones available....so you bring it up here because...?
Slavery was not illegal then. as awlful as slavery was, the United States did nothing before 1860 to help get rid of it.To much money involved.
I'm using this article as a launchpad to discuss some modern university historians practice of glamorizing the North's role in the War while vilifying the South. For example, James McPherson and his heavy emphasis on slavery and race in the War which is a weakness for the South and somewhat of a strength for the North. McPherson tends to shy away from the North's guilt in slavery and racism, but is heavy handed with the South. There are many more examples possible, McPherson is not alone in this practice. Even the Salon article is mostly focused on race more-so than the War itself.
My question is are some modern historians trying to glorify the North, teaching their own "correct" (Northern) version of history while preventing "incorrect" (Southern) versions. Isn't this exactly what Milly is accused of doing for the South? Are we being taught correctly? Or, are our current history books/lectures just another "Milly" version of history to exalt some people as heroes and make others out to be the villains and no other thought is allowed to be taught?
That the North went to war to free the slaves is a common belief in American society. I used to believe it myself. The members of this forum are a cut above the general population when it comes to historical knowledge, but I suspect in a minority.
Not relevant to this discussion. When a region was no longer part of a Territory (i.e. when it became a state) it was no longer beholding to U.S. congressional dictums applying to slavery in the Territories. Northern states allowed slavery for years before each one of them, separately over time, voted it out of their state.