Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (440116)	8/8/2003 4:11:34 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

This is also correct. Neo-confederates commonly respond to this point by noting that most southern soldiers did not own slaves and that one therefore cannot claim the war was not over slavery. It is a wondrously illogical approach. We cannot ultimately define the meaning of the war in terms of those who did not have power to make it happen. You may have fought in Iraqi Freedom simply because you wished to impress your girlfriend. But since Bush had power to compel you and tens of thousands of other Americans toward the single will of "freeing Iraqis," his is the definition we must find in the history books. Wars are fought in order to advance the wills and purposes of those with ultimate power to advance them. Southern politicians advanced their soldiers to protect slavery, and therefore had the South won, slavery would have been protected. To define the ultimate point of the southern effort, we therefore must refer to the aims of the southern leaders. When Bobby Lee used his skills on the battlefield during the Civil War, he willingly helped southern leaders struggle to protect slavery.