Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> Julia wrote:
>
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >> Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
> >> doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
> >> unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that
> >> the
> >> Civil War was fought over states rights.
> >
> > The Civil War was *waged* over slavery.
> >
> > Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so
> > arguably it was *fought* over that.
> >
> > A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee
> > wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the
> > Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably
> > one of the major factors that lost the war for the South.
>
> But that's personal loyalty, not really a stand in favor of states'
> rights, don't you think?
That's what some of the folks were fighting for in their own minds.
If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was "slavery" or
"states rights", they'd have said "states rights."
But if you'd just asked one, he'd probably have said his state.
Defending his homeland or something.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
