View single post by JoanieReb
 Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2007 10:39 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There were plenty of men willing to give up democracy for slavery, not as many willing to give up slavery for democracy...

That argument is just too clean, sterile, and 2-dimensional to me.  As Ole pointed out that the war became about slavery, I would like to flesh that out with:  For The Southerner, it also became about basic survival.  Set aside losing the slaves for a few minutes, by that point in the war, it became, for just about every Southerner, about losing EVERYTHING.  You know, the stuff like home and family.  And it pro'bly became about basic survival before it became about slavery.  Gee, if The South lost, just imagine what reconstruction could have been like?  (Admittedly, I think reconstruction was much kinder for the white southerners than it could have been - that's another topic, but how could they have known that until it happened - and it still weren't fun for anyone, black or white, but the northerner...)

In a later era: World War II had a  number of causes;  the attack on Pearl Harbor compelled many to enlist, but Pearl Harbor was not the cause of the war...

I admit that my WWII is very weak indeed, so I ask this in all sincerity:  Sure, Pearl Harbor was not the casue of WWII (I think it had already started? in other countries?) But would the US have entered into WWII without Pearl Harbor, and if so, when?



Last edited on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 10:49 pm by JoanieReb

 Close Window