Julia wrote: > The thing is, the rank-and-file who were fighting weren't fighting for > slavery, they were fighting for their homeland. State loyalty was higher > in the south, and national loyalty lower. > > So yes, the main impetus of the war was the preservation of slavery, > but that's not the reason that was in the minds of many of the people > doing the actual fighting. > > I mean, my great-great grandfather didn't charge up a hill with Pickett > at Gettysburg for the sake of slavery, but for the sake of Virginia.
But it's not as if anyone was out to come and steal the homeland. I don't pretend to speak for your Great-great grandfather, but I have no doubt that there was a general awareness that slavery was central to the conflict. I don't mean to disparage the gallantry of anyone's ancestors, but the presence and the prominence of that monument and the way it seeks to glorify and justify the "cause" when the cause is an excuse to continue the institution of slavery is offensive. It has to be particularly galling to African Americans. I saw no monument that celebrates the emancipation, yet it was a watershed event in the history of our country and must be the most important event in African American history. How can a person feel like they are an equal partner in government if the first thing they see when they enter the grounds of the State's most important icon is the glorification of a cause whose purpose was to keep _their_ ancestors enslaved? Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
