(Page 6 of 8)
money , and it started in the Senate several years before the first shot was fired. After "the war of northern aggression" was over, there was a concerted effort to change the nations history by destroying historical documents, and it has continued on by convincing people that the war was fought because of slavery, and that our nation began at Plymouth Rock. Could it have been avoided? Of course. But it was much more profitable for the struggling industries of the North, not to. It was also not to the South's advantage to give up the power that it held in the government because of the millions of dollars that came from cotton. At that time, it was perfectly legal for the states to secede, but that would have left the North poor and struggling. And the rest is history? Or whatever, that is, that's taught nowadays. br> -- Candy Bohmert br> North Carolina /p>With respect, I think there were economic interests at stake, but the overwhelming issue was a moral one: whether slavery should be allowed, and also at stake was a huge amount of Southern ambivalence about slavery. Many in the South were against it, and Lincoln counted on them to help the Union -- and they did.
Still, as another writer wrote, romantic illusions die hard. Love, Ben
*****
As usual, Ben Stein asks thoughtful questions. But the short answer is that Lincoln saw a way to do to the South what Britain had done to the colonies. Since the South was largely agrarian and dependent on labor, forced and otherwise, if the South could be deprived of the majority of its labor, its natural resources would be ripe for the picking. Lincoln and his cronies were right, but it took a lot of bloodshed to make it happen.
p>As to why so many were so brave, two of my ancestors wrote about their experiences, and they remark that when a commander said before an engagement that he expected few of them to live through it, hardly an eyebrow was raised. br> -- Mary McLemore
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.