[at-l] Now you've stepped into it!!!

[DTimm65344@aol.com (DTimm65344@aol.com)]

t. wrote:

<<the civil war was not about slavery! If this was true, why did it take
another 100 years for the civil rights movement?   Many northern land owners
possessed slaves.  This country is full of examples of bigoted male land
owners with political power.  (still today)

the American Civil war was more about states' rights.>>

Phil wrote:

<<Oh dear, Weary, now you have stepped right in the middle of it.  How
many posts are we going to get now which tell us in great detail how the
Civil War was not about slavery.  Think I'll take a long nap and then
head for the cabin.>>

The Civil War (or the War of Northern Agression as my southern friends 
(including  my Texan wife) term it) was about states rights to the South and 
about slavery to the North.  Southern politicians and business leaders 
believed in minimal central government and wished to preserve the industry of 
the south which was agrarian and (they believed) dependent on slavery.  
Northern politicians, industrialists and scholars found slavery as a suitable 
cause to push back with because the northern economy was decidedly not 
slavery based (it was european indentured servitude based as it had always 
been).  It's ad so many of those without a dog in the fight got fed as cannon 
fodder.  You're both right.

'Nuff said.

Movin' on,

Black&blue