To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (235984 ) 6/6/2005 4:18:09 AM From: tejek Read Replies (2) | Respond to Ted, Your post inferred that the North was the aggressor. It was not. The South wanted to persist in an immoral act.......owning human beings. The North did not agree. The South started a war. Its that simple. To make something else out of it is a sad attempt at revisionism. But first things first. Some southerners still see the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression." To them, they had the right to dissent and secede, which they saw as the same right the original thirteen colonies used to justify the Declaration of Independence. So when Lincoln made that statement, "Our national unity, it must be preserved," the South knew they weren't going to be able to secede without a fight. As for slavery, the initial argument over it was one of politics and economics, not morality. The abolitionists were but a small minority in the North; most didn't care, and a few even wanted it to continue because of fears that abolition would hurt North-South trade relations. But the real issue was the South asserting state sovereignty at the expense of federal authority, for they saw the North as growing way too quickly in population and influence, and they weren't about to give up their power and their way of life. Slavery was only a part of it. Hence my amusement when those on the left use the overwhelming negative impression of slavery as an excuse to revise history. Lincoln had a lot of qualities, but he was a VERY controversial figure at the time, and some of those qualities are the same "vices" you accuse George W. Bush of having.
