I'm not racist, but....

[steve-in-kville]

But when I look at the prominent newspaper here in Lancaster County and almost every day, there are major crimes reported with the perp being either black or Hispanic, I have negative feelings about them.

The county north to you isn't any different.

To that end, as much as I hate to use the term, there is such a thing as "white trash".

[Ken]

Wanted to make sure it is clear, the south may have fought for states rights,

And what rights were southern states seeking that they felt were being denied to them?

Do you read my post? Or selectively stop once you have something to attack?

I was responding more to the notion popularized in the south in the years after the war that the conflict was really about states rights not slavery.

My larger point was that it was actually the south that was opposed to states rights not the north. If you read the articles of secession of most confederate states what they are really complaining about is the fact that northern states were not deferential enough to the institution of slavery. In other words, they were arguing for a stronger federal government to protect the institution of slavery, not a weaker federal government with individual states free to chart their own individual paths on the subject of slavery or anything else. This was especially true when it came to western expansion.

It would be much more historically accurate to say that the south went to war because they OPPOSED state's rights and felt threatened by the actions of individual states that they felt were not properly deferential to the federal government. A federal government that up to that point they had basically controlled.

[Soloist]

I was responding more to the notion popularized in the south in the years after the war that the conflict was really about states rights not slavery.

My larger point was that it was actually the south that was opposed to states rights not the north. If you read the articles of secession of most confederate states what they are really complaining about is the fact that northern states were not deferential enough to the institution of slavery. In other words, they were arguing for a stronger federal government to protect the institution of slavery, not a weaker federal government with individual states free to chart their own individual paths on the subject of slavery or anything else. This was especially true when it came to western expansion.

It would be much more historically accurate to say that the south went to war because they OPPOSED state's rights and felt threatened by the actions of individual states that they felt were not properly deferential to the federal government. A federal government that up to that point they had basically controlled.

Well good, the outcome got them exactly what they went to war for. I guess that means the South really did win.

[Ken]

I was responding more to the notion popularized in the south in the years after the war that the conflict was really about states rights not slavery.

My larger point was that it was actually the south that was opposed to states rights not the north. If you read the articles of secession of most confederate states what they are really complaining about is the fact that northern states were not deferential enough to the institution of slavery. In other words, they were arguing for a stronger federal government to protect the institution of slavery, not a weaker federal government with individual states free to chart their own individual paths on the subject of slavery or anything else. This was especially true when it came to western expansion.

It would be much more historically accurate to say that the south went to war because they OPPOSED state's rights and felt threatened by the actions of individual states that they felt were not properly deferential to the federal government. A federal government that up to that point they had basically controlled.

Well good, the outcome got them exactly what they went to war for. I guess that means the South really did win.

People who start wars of choice rarely see them end the way that they expected. Especially when they start them based on lies. It wasn't just the Confederates. Witness Germany in 1914 and 1939, Japan in 1941, The Palestinians and their Arab allies in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The US in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And now the Russians in Ukraine. All wars of choice premised on lies.

[Soloist]

People who start wars of choice rarely see them end the way that they expected. Especially when they start them based on lies. It wasn't just the Confederates. Witness Germany in 1914 and 1939, Japan in 1941, The Palestinians and their Arab allies in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The US in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And now the Russians in Ukraine. All wars of choice premised on lies.

Well those who rebelled against the British over taxes and no representation got heavier taxes and less representation.
I think you are misrepresenting those though. Germany during WW2 is a good example, WW1 was much more complicated then just saying Germany lied.
I don’t see that the Confederates lied though, they started fighting when the Union refused to respect borders which were based on state lines. I think they were very clear and the Union base commander knew he couldn’t hold but had been ordered to.

[Josh]

People who start wars of choice rarely see them end the way that they expected. Especially when they start them based on lies. It wasn't just the Confederates. Witness Germany in 1914 and 1939, Japan in 1941, The Palestinians and their Arab allies in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The US in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And now the Russians in Ukraine. All wars of choice premised on lies.

Every war is a choice, and I think saying the Palestinians had a "war of choice" in 1948, 1967, and 1973 is pretty absurd when you're simultaneously defending Ukraine as being "invaded". The Palestinians were invaded and had their land stolen, their homes literally bulldozed. I don't support war at all, but at least be consistent.

[RZehr]

I was responding more to the notion popularized in the south in the years after the war that the conflict was really about states rights not slavery.

My larger point was that it was actually the south that was opposed to states rights not the north. If you read the articles of secession of most confederate states what they are really complaining about is the fact that northern states were not deferential enough to the institution of slavery. In other words, they were arguing for a stronger federal government to protect the institution of slavery, not a weaker federal government with individual states free to chart their own individual paths on the subject of slavery or anything else. This was especially true when it came to western expansion.

It would be much more historically accurate to say that the south went to war because they OPPOSED state's rights and felt threatened by the actions of individual states that they felt were not properly deferential to the federal government. A federal government that up to that point they had basically controlled.

Well good, the outcome got them exactly what they went to war for. I guess that means the South really did win.

People who start wars of choice rarely see them end the way that they expected. Especially when they start them based on lies. It wasn't just the Confederates. Witness Germany in 1914 and 1939, Japan in 1941, The Palestinians and their Arab allies in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The US in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And now the Russians in Ukraine. All wars of choice premised on lies.

European Americans completely conquered the native Americans by choice, from Canada to Argentina. The Western Hemisphere essentially speaks English, Spanish and Portuguese. Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, conquered and are now conquered. Australian, and NZ aren't run by the historical people either. All wars of choice.

Further back we have all the Roman and Ottoman empires that lasted hundreds of years. Mongols.

[Ken]

Well good, the outcome got them exactly what they went to war for. I guess that means the South really did win.

People who start wars of choice rarely see them end the way that they expected. Especially when they start them based on lies. It wasn't just the Confederates. Witness Germany in 1914 and 1939, Japan in 1941, The Palestinians and their Arab allies in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The US in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And now the Russians in Ukraine. All wars of choice premised on lies.

European Americans completely conquered the native Americans by choice, from Canada to Argentina. The Western Hemisphere essentially speaks English, Spanish and Portuguese. Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, conquered and are now conquered. Australian, and NZ aren't run by the historical people either. All wars of choice.

Further back we have all the Roman and Ottoman empires that lasted hundreds of years. Mongols.

Yes, in the pre-modern era you had absolutely MASSIVE inequities in technology and organization when primitive societies encountered advanced societies. That was the case in the conquest of the Americas as well as the Roman empire. Those weren't wars between equal states.

Today that isn't the case. The US might have thought it was the case in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan but they discovered otherwise. As the Russians are discovering in Ukraine today. And as the Confederates discovered during the Civil War when they convinced themselves that their martial traditions and valor could beat industrial armies full of immigrants.

[ken_sylvania]

Ah, yes, war is OK as long as the “good guys” win.

We can certainly make moral judgments about the reasons why societies go to war. The civil war was launched by the south. They told us exactly why. The defense of and expansion of race-based slavery. And it was folly from the start as General Sherman pointed out to southern politicians in New Orleans on the eve of the war

Why did the north go to war? Did they have a more righteous purpose than the south?

[Ken]

Ah, yes, war is OK as long as the “good guys” win.

We can certainly make moral judgments about the reasons why societies go to war. The civil war was launched by the south. They told us exactly why. The defense of and expansion of race-based slavery. And it was folly from the start as General Sherman pointed out to southern politicians in New Orleans on the eve of the war

Why did the north go to war? Did they have a more righteous purpose than the south?

Initially because it (the United States) was attacked and to defend the union and and nation and constitution against a minority insurrection. And yes, the confederates were in a minority even within the south. They were just a minority that held power.

Later as the war evolved it became a war of abolition and liberation.