> There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the > Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because > they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the > simplistic interpretation, and maybe the most correct one, of the Civil > War was that it was about the slavery issue, a lot of those who fought > for the Confederacy did not justify their participation for that > reason. "Slavery" doesn't get to what was really going on in the hearts > and minds of many of those who fought. (And those in the North weren't > primarily fighting to free the slaves, either, although there were those > who went to war willingly for that end.) > > Some people might slap the "oil" interpretation over anything the US > does in the Middle East. Evidently that is not the motivation for a > large number of people supporting the current actions. > > Poke at this parallel, scream at me if you like, but this is where *my* > mind went in the face of the oil/no, not oil argument. Substitute any > idea that might be self-serving for Bush himself but not supported by > supporters of the war for oil, if you like, and I'll throw the same > Civil War situation back again. >
Let's say that you're right, and that many (maybe even most) of the Confederate soldiers were not fighting to defend slavery. So what? The motivation of their leaders CERTAINLY was primarily if not exclusively to defend slavery. THAT was the "state's right" that all the states seceded to protect. The Civil War was ALL about slavery; yes, there were other factors, but they all came back to slavery. Once the war began, people on each side fought for many reasons; but if there had not been any slavery, there would have been no Civil War. That said, I don't claim that this is a war over oil. And even if it were, calling it that would not denigrate the soldiers, who are fighting for their country. But there could be - and in the Civil War apparently was - a major disconnect between the motivations of the people doing the fighting and that of the people who sent them to fight. (Southern soldiers, cynical about the plantation owners, called the war 'A rich man's war and a poor man's fight'.) To understand the origins of a war, it's perhaps less important to understand the people who were sent to fight. They rarely know much about the strategy and policy that led to the outbreak of the war. Especially when the leadership dissembles or conceals or deceives or exaggerates - c.f, Vietnam then and Iraq now. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
