150 years after the American Civil War: Was the South Right?
 

The Civil War (1861-1865) has got to be the last and most epic war ever between two English speaking nations. The South has been demonized for having slavery but in spite of what is implied by the mainstream media, the war really wasn't over slavery. The South fought for freedom from a more and more encroaching federal government and the North fought to keep them in the Union and the abolition of slavery was really just a byproduct of the South losing. Personally, I think the South should have been allowed to leave in peace.

Was the South Right?

Oh, forgot to mention Tuesday April 12 is the 150th anniversary of the start of the war.

There was an interesting programme on BBC4 on Abraham Lincoln. He was a racist and an intolerant bigot.

I dont think it's as black and white as it's often made out to be, the North are often painted as being on a noble crusade to free the slaves from oppressive Southern bigots that's not really the whole story

LMAO. What a load of rubbish. Yes, the South was right. Yep, packing Klan members on all the juries to ensure that fellow Klansmen got let go.

True, the Civil War was not fought mainly over slavery. However, in the North, black citizens were free. Underground Railroad, people?

The South went "Red" (Republican) due to the Civil Rights Act being signed. They never got over black people getting equal rights. They aren't still bitter today over some lame taxation policy implemented all those many centuries ago.

The South is a backwards place, and IMO, should have been allowed to secede. They've been nothing but trouble since day one, and are a pox on the entire country. Cut them off, and the place wouldn't survive two seconds. Let them teach their creationism, and stone people. What's hilarious is that they depend more on the federal government than the rest of the US. They also have the lowest IQs.:xyxwave:

Yeah we know a few yanks who got all upset over taxation policies dont we?

Make up your mind would they succeed or would they not survuve?

Oh you meant secede?

The lowest IQ of the low it would seem!

Haha. My spell check did that ****. :joker:

What two nations?

Perhaps there is a clue in the term civil war, doesnt that mean a war between factions or areas of one nation?

Nor is it the last or most epic, what about war between Britain and the various groups who have struggled for freedom for Ireland?

The USA and the CSA (Confederate States of America). The CSA was a nation, albeit a short-lived nation.


At the time it wasn't called The Civil War and I agree that civil war suggests it's a war within one nation. But the South had its own government, currency, capitol, army and even a navy. It was a war between at least two nations, one claiming the other didn't rightfully exist. To the Southerners at the time it was called the war of northern agression.

I never thought of Irish people's struggle for independence as a war so much as a series of terrorist events. And if the Civil War wasn't the most epic war ever between two English-speaking nations, then what was? If you look at it statistically in terms of casualties and all the books, folklore, songs, you name it, that the war produced it is by just about every standard the most epic war ever between two English speaking peoples. It transformed the US forever. Neither you nor I would recognize the US prior to 1861 and when the dust settled in 1865, the modern USA was born. Before the war people would say "the United States are..." but after the war people would say "the United States is..." so the war changed the nation from an "are" to an "is". What other war can match these things?