back to top
You seem to have difficulty with quoting sources.
Yours is: "In the south no opposition was allowed to the goverment which had been set up.And which would have become real and respected if the rebellion HAD BEEN successful."
The actual qoutation is a single sentence ( no period between 'up' and 'and' ). The sentence's subject is the 'opposition to the government' and anything occuring later in the sentence refers to the subject(the 'opposition').
It could also mean that Grant believed in the two-party system and that the 'opposition' (hereto suppressed) that would become 'real and respected', but I doubt that is his meaning.
There is a fundamental difference between a 'government' and a 'nation'. Governments (and their authority) come and go; nations continue. Grant says nothing of a confederate 'nation'. That word is inserted in your imaginery quotation.
In general, in response to your final few sentences, the North believed the 2 sections are stronger united than apart...
In the south no opposition was allowed to the goverment which had been set up and which would have become real and respected if the rebellion had been successful. Hank, I had hoped to get Mark and TD's thoughts on what they thought Grant meant by this. But I guess Mark is moving, and I seem to be as A.P. Hill at the Seven Day's Battle waiting on Stonewall Jackson, I have waited for TD's thoughts in vain. I must ask you what goverment was set up in the south? There was no goverment set up in the south during the war, but the Confederate Goverment. Period or not. There is no other goverment in the south. You say Grant means the opposition to the goverment would become real and respected. But if you will note, he writes" in the south no opposition was allowed to the goverment which had been set up. You seem to have imagined the opposition. I see no other alternative, than to admit Grant was indeed writing of the Confederacy.