CDZ A Very Interesting Video of the South as 'Other'

[JimBowie1958]

A very interesting video though I disagree with some of it, they do present some new and unusual perspectives on the South.

What do you all think?



This one gives the Southern view of the Civil War

 

[Toronado3800]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

Sure some farm boy someplace wss duped into degending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A very interesting video though I disagree with some of it, they do present some new and unusual perspectives on the South.

What do you all think?

Preface:
I watched only the first video. Is the second video anything other than an exposition of the "Lost Cause" narrative?

Main post:
What I think that I haven't thought before is that if it's so that the heritage of the man Confederate citizens who weren't slaveholders (ignoring for the moment the question of whether if they could have been, would they have been -- a question that is much like today asking if one could own and profit from a multimillion dollar business that affords one a cushy lifestyle, would one....) is what today's Southerners revere, why do they not advocate for statues of those common men and women?

Why do we not see bridges, streets, schools and buildings named for them or groups of them? Why do we see no push to memorialize the Antebellum and Confederate migrant worker, indentured servant, self-sustaining farmer who had no slaves, shipwright who employed only paid workers, carpenters, etc? Why do we not see and hear advocates for preserving Southern history hollering for exchanging the existing honoraria for alternative honoraria calling attention to people and groups who had no inextricable ties to the perpetuation of the "curious institution?"

To me, the answer is clear. The mention that most Confederates were not slave owners is but a red herring.

What do you all think?

1. Think about what, in particular?
2. What did you see/hear in that video that struck you as new?
   
   I'm asking because I didn't hear anything new. The closest things to new that I heard were:
   1. The notion that among the available straws at which modern Southerners might grasp in seeking a focal point of cultural identity and unity, a romanticized version of the Civil War and its heroes, the one deriving from "Lost Cause" narrative, are the least odious. What is new about the narrator's presentation of that notion isn't the theme, but rather that he, rather than others who've done so, presented it.
   2. That on a sympathetic spectrum having as endpoints Civil War scholars' dispassionate analyses (legal, psychological, and anthropological/sociological) of the "Lost Cause" narrative's mythological dimensions (by fact, by inference/implication or by context) and Southerners' unabashed zeal for any and all idealized perceptions of the "Old South" and the Confederacy, the narrator falls somewhere between the two. What's ostensibly new about that is, again, that the narrator is the person who happens in that video to be the one identifying the socio-psychological (cultural anthropological) drivers behind why Southerners cleave to the "Lost Cause" narrative and to imagery and symbology that evokes the Confederate and Antebellum era in the American South.
      
      Among bigots, those sociological/humanness explanations become the exculpatory "inch" of understanding given that becomes the "mile" of justification for overlooking literally every other existential feature of Confederacy and its antecedents and thereafter lionizing notions that are inextricably linked to the the "Old South." Civil War scholars, on the other hand, acknowledge the middle-ground by ; rather they conclude that as a myth, the "Lost Cause" narrative is a cause célèbre and that, considered on the whole, it is execrably inapt as the "straw" grasped in Southerners' quest for a focal point of identity.

 

[Toronado3800]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

We disagree then. Most importantly we disagree in style, I come out and say what I believe. You are like an ex girlfriend of mine who had motivations for every seemingly open ended question.

Instead of saying "I think the traitors who fought against the united states did it because they felt the constitutional election of a president was unfair not slavery" or whatever your opinion is, you hid it like the racists here think they hide themselves by talking in code.

In reference to my crack about maybe people who could not read misunderstood the reason for the war, have you read the Texas declaration of causes?

I just don't understand how anyone who could read would think they were signing up to fight for anything but slavery.

To help you, there is a case to be made by those who did not own 20 slaves or whatever who were drafted into southern service. The heroic thing to do would be resist or surrender to the north at first chance but most fought pretty admirably (like the SS, those boys WERE good soldiers).

Civil disobedience is a bit much to expect or demand from the average man I admit.

Now if you want to start a different topic about racism in the north go ahead. I will tell you the protesters firing up here in StLouis have a just cause and merely express themselves poorly to say the least. All day long I will agree with you racism runs rampant in all of humanity but IMO that does anything but help your point

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

We disagree then. Most importantly we disagree in style, I come out and say what I believe. You are like an ex girlfriend of mine who had motivations for every seemingly open ended question.

Instead of saying "I think the traitors who fought against the united states did it because they felt the constitutional election of a president was unfair not slavery" or whatever your opinion is, you hid it like the racists here think they hide themselves by talking in code.

In reference to my crack about maybe people who could not read misunderstood the reason for the war, have you read the Texas declaration of causes?

I just don't understand how anyone who could read would think they were signing up to fight for anything but slavery.

To help you, there is a case to be made by those who did not own 20 slaves or whatever who were drafted into southern service. The heroic thing to do would be resist or surrender to the north at first chance but most fought pretty admirably (like the SS, those boys WERE good soldiers).

Civil disobedience is a bit much to expect or demand from the average man I admit.

Now if you want to start a different topic about racism in the north go ahead. I will tell you the protesters firing up here in StLouis have a just cause and merely express themselves poorly to say the least. All day long I will agree with you racism runs rampant in all of humanity but IMO that does anything but help your point

roflmao, you use accusations of feminism to attempt to distract from the topic.

Fact is that asserting that the Civil War had one cause is simply idiotic, especially slavery.

 

[Toronado3800]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

We disagree then. Most importantly we disagree in style, I come out and say what I believe. You are like an ex girlfriend of mine who had motivations for every seemingly open ended question.

Instead of saying "I think the traitors who fought against the united states did it because they felt the constitutional election of a president was unfair not slavery" or whatever your opinion is, you hid it like the racists here think they hide themselves by talking in code.

In reference to my crack about maybe people who could not read misunderstood the reason for the war, have you read the Texas declaration of causes?

I just don't understand how anyone who could read would think they were signing up to fight for anything but slavery.

To help you, there is a case to be made by those who did not own 20 slaves or whatever who were drafted into southern service. The heroic thing to do would be resist or surrender to the north at first chance but most fought pretty admirably (like the SS, those boys WERE good soldiers).

Civil disobedience is a bit much to expect or demand from the average man I admit.

Now if you want to start a different topic about racism in the north go ahead. I will tell you the protesters firing up here in StLouis have a just cause and merely express themselves poorly to say the least. All day long I will agree with you racism runs rampant in all of humanity but IMO that does anything but help your point

roflmao, you use accusations of feminism to attempt to distract from the topic.

Fact is that asserting that the Civil War had one cause is simply idiotic, especially slavery.

In regards to conversing like my ex, consider it a tip. In some ways she was smarter than I. She was timid and liked to feel others out instead of making her point about an apartment, where to eat, whatever.

Given your strong opinion a thread title of "5 reasons I believe slavery was not the cause of the civil war"

FWIW, I could have just said that instead of mentioning you and a woman in the same sentence but my filter lacks.

Some of my best friends are southern traitor worshipers who believe the war was not fought for slavery.

They despise or are soo embarassed by slavery and racism they can't accept the fact their great great great whoever was racist in a time most whites could tell the shanty irish apart from the rest of them.

If we agree racism is bad we can move on to my other question. Do we agree racism is bad?

Assuming we do, what do you believe the causes of the civil war were?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Assuming we do, what do you believe the causes of the civil war were?

Yes, dimwit, racism is bad as society defines it, not Ivory tower academians.

The causes of the Civil War, in no particular order are:
the development of sectionalism
North developing into a manufactures based economy while the South remained agrarian
the inferiority of Southern states in the federal relationship
the loss of civility between the two camps
the use of tariffs to fund federal programs which came mostly from the South but were spent mostly in the North
conflicts over slavery
John Browns raid and the partisan reactions to it
dehumanization of blacks by racial theorists

 

[Correll]

I've lived in the south, for months at a time. I saw no obsession with the Civil War.

Never heard it referenced once, actually.


Even when I visited the birthplace of Robert E. Lee.

 

[TNHarley]

I've lived in the south, for months at a time. I saw no obsession with the Civil War.

Never heard it referenced once, actually.


Even when I visited the birthplace of Robert E. Lee.

There isnt one.
There arent confederate flags everywhere. There are no blacks being hung from trees. There are no Jews being jumped by toothless inbreds.
They get mad about people generalizing while defending the argument with generalizations.
People are stupid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

Lincoln and the Union Army did not invade the South, at the time the Union moved soldiers into Fort Sumter the Civil War had not commenced. That said, the bombardment of the Fort by Southern Forces, and the responding return fire by the Union Soldiers began the Civil War.

States Rights was the euphemism, and the Right to own slaves was the major component of that claim.

 

[Correll]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

Lincoln and the Union Army did not invade the South, at the time the Union moved soldiers into Fort Sumter the Civil War had not commenced. That said, the bombardment of the Fort by Southern Forces, and the responding return fire by the Union Soldiers began the Civil War.

States Rights was the euphemism, and the Right to own slaves was the major component of that claim.

If Guam voted to be independent, would you support Trump using military forces to keep them in the Union?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've lived in the south, for months at a time. I saw no obsession with the Civil War.

Never heard it referenced once, actually.


Even when I visited the birthplace of Robert E. Lee.

There isnt one.
There arent confederate flags everywhere. There are no blacks being hung from trees. There are no Jews being jumped by toothless inbreds.
They get mad about people generalizing while defending the argument with generalizations.
People are stupid.

The largest flag of any type I have ever seen was the Stars and Bars flying in the City of Tampa, FL.

We were visiting my in laws and I attended a fair or 4H event in Hillsborough County with my niece, who had entered a hen in the competition. I spoke with a number of FL natives there, and at my nephews Little League game later in the week. People around our nation are pretty much the same, I got no flak from being from California or a native of San Francisco, in fact many of them had visited or wanted to visit California and the SF Bay Area. They were aware I was the Uncle from California and the SF Bay Area, and didn't present at all as do the RWer's who post here.

Those I spoke with were polite and curious, not rude, self righteous and hateful as are so many who post on this MB.

 

[Correll]

I've lived in the south, for months at a time. I saw no obsession with the Civil War.

Never heard it referenced once, actually.


Even when I visited the birthplace of Robert E. Lee.

There isnt one.
There arent confederate flags everywhere. There are no blacks being hung from trees. There are no Jews being jumped by toothless inbreds.
They get mad about people generalizing while defending the argument with generalizations.
People are stupid.

The largest flag of any type I have ever seen was the Stars and Bars flying in the City of Tampa, FL.

We were visiting my in laws and I attended a fair or 4H event in Hillsborough County with my niece, who had entered a hen in the competition. I spoke with a number of FL natives there, and at my nephews Little League game later in the week. People around our nation are pretty much the same, I got no flak from being from California or a native of San Francisco, in fact many of them had visited or wanted to visit California and the SF Bay Area. They were aware I was the Uncle from California and the SF Bay Area, and didn't present at all as do the RWer's who post here.

Those I spoke with were polite and curious, not rude, self righteous and hateful as are so many who post on this MB.

So, you agree that that OP, ie the South as the "other" is incorrect?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

Lincoln and the Union Army did not invade the South, at the time the Union moved soldiers into Fort Sumter the Civil War had not commenced. That said, the bombardment of the Fort by Southern Forces, and the responding return fire by the Union Soldiers began the Civil War.

States Rights was the euphemism, and the Right to own slaves was the major component of that claim.

If Guam voted to be independent, would you support Trump using military forces to keep them in the Union?

Hell no. Since our Military is the largest employer, followed by tourism, it is hard to imagine Guam voting to become independent. It is more likely that the native residents of Guam would vote to become the 51st State.

BTW, Wake Island which has the longest USAF landing strip in the Pacific Islands is only 2789 air miles from Pyongyang: North Korea take note!

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've lived in the south, for months at a time. I saw no obsession with the Civil War.

Never heard it referenced once, actually.


Even when I visited the birthplace of Robert E. Lee.

There isnt one.
There arent confederate flags everywhere. There are no blacks being hung from trees. There are no Jews being jumped by toothless inbreds.
They get mad about people generalizing while defending the argument with generalizations.
People are stupid.

The largest flag of any type I have ever seen was the Stars and Bars flying in the City of Tampa, FL.

We were visiting my in laws and I attended a fair or 4H event in Hillsborough County with my niece, who had entered a hen in the competition. I spoke with a number of FL natives there, and at my nephews Little League game later in the week. People around our nation are pretty much the same, I got no flak from being from California or a native of San Francisco, in fact many of them had visited or wanted to visit California and the SF Bay Area. They were aware I was the Uncle from California and the SF Bay Area, and didn't present at all as do the RWer's who post here.

Those I spoke with were polite and curious, not rude, self righteous and hateful as are so many who post on this MB.

So, you agree that that OP, ie the South as the "other" is incorrect?

That has been my experience in Savannah, Amelia Island, several Florida Cities, Houston and San Antonio, Richmond, VA, St. Louis and Louisville Kentucky. The only asshole I met was in DC, I was with my 15 and 21 yo sons and the younger boy had his ball cap on backwards.

This asshole, out of the blue & wearing the BB New Jersey ball cap made a comment to my youngest that he had his hat on ass backwards. I said to the SOB, "You best shut your mouth Admiral". He never made eye contact with me, and when the elevator stopped he got off when others got on. I doubt it was his floor since the only button pushed was for the lobby.

 

[Toronado3800]

In general I also don't find people here obsessed with "the south".

Maybe once a year in person (though often enough here) someone brings up this causes of the civil war debate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In general I also don't find people here obsessed with "the south".

Maybe once a year in person (though often enough here) someone brings up this causes of the civil war debate.

What were the causes of the Civil War, in your opinion?

 

[Toronado3800]

In general I also don't find people here obsessed with "the south".

Maybe once a year in person (though often enough here) someone brings up this causes of the civil war debate.

What were the causes of the Civil War, in your opinion?

I think the slavery issue boiled over, the South could see their power weakening in national elections and they struck back the only way they could.

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
I think the slavery issue boiled over, the South could see their power weakening in national elections and they struck back the only way they could.

So the South invaded the North and conducted a scorched Earth campaign from Dc to Baltimore to New York then Boston...no, wait, that was General Sherman through the South.

roflmao