Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:38 PM
It has been a good twenty years since I read about this, but I recall a discussion.
First, the war was a bigger deal for the South than for the Northern states, so they will have more stories about it and are more likely to have their own heros.
The sympathetic case for the Southern states would be that this marked the point at which they were not longer voluntary enterants into a union comparable to the EU, but instead became subject states of Washington. The colonies had claimed the right to independence from the British crown, but were denied that right from Washington.
The economic basis of the two sets of states was very different. Policies were set for the benefit of the Northern states and undermined the Southern states. For the Southern states to modernise and progress, independence was a pre-requisite.
We may rise the issue of slavery, however, slavery was not a central issue in this was any more than in the First American War of Independence. Southern states that developed thier economy would progress past the primitive slave based agriculture, which was not sustainable. By imposing the ban on slavery, it bred resentment and impeded progress in the South to an extent to which they are still recovering.
I do not accept these arguments, but this would be the other side of the story. Many in England did accept them, particularly in the more agricultural South.