i live in a northern state. school textbooks said the cause was slavery. and the north was justified to punish the south. even general sherman's destruction of georgia was portrayed positively.
but, in the south, it's called 'the war of northern aggression'. and there's proof of the north mistreating the south, especially in commerce. northern factories needed southern raw materials. but northern factory owners didn't pay southern farmers fair prices.
slavery is hellish. but 2 things make me think that the civil was wasn't actually about slavery:
1. people in the north are proud about african americans' freedom from slavery. but, also, people in the north ignore the enslavement of african americans by the founding fathers.
2. there were european americans, especially irish, who were enslaved in the north. and people in the north didn't have a problem with it.
p.s. communist / liberal media deny that irish americans were slaves.
i live in a northern state. school textbooks said the cause was slavery. and the north was justified to punish the south. even general sherman's destruction of georgia was portrayed positively.
but, in the south, it's called 'the war of northern aggression'. and there's proof of the north mistreating the south, especially in commerce. northern factories needed southern raw materials. but northern factory owners didn't pay southern farmers fair prices.
slavery is hellish. but 2 things make me think that the civil was wasn't actually about slavery:
1. people in the north are proud about african americans' freedom from slavery. but, also, people in the north ignore the enslavement of african americans by the founding fathers.
2. there were european americans, especially irish, who were enslaved in the north. and people in the north didn't have a problem with it.
p.s. communist / liberal media deny that irish americans were slaves.
(post is archived)