NC secession

On 30 Jul 1996 10:03:47 -0400, AThosWhite@aol.com 
wrote:

>What pushed NC over the edge was the resupply of 
>Fort Sumter. Everybody knew what was coming next.  
>... the "opinion leaders" didn't much mention 
>slavery or federal oppression: their argument was 
>"We're surrounded. What choice do we really have?"

     I infer from your reply that NC politicians
feared invasion from the seceding states or from
the Union, and chose to support the slaveholding 
insurrectionists instead of the Northern unionists. 
The fact that they didn't delineate the full scope 
of their choice doesn't mean they didn't make the 
choice at all. I'd agree that it was an unpleasant 
situation for them.

>More Tarheels served, and more died (and more 
>deserted) than from any other state.

     The "deserted" reference also suggests that 
the memorial is not fully descriptive of state
sentiment, to the extent that some "bravely turned
and fled."

>Union troops occupied the eastern parts of the 
>state from early on in the war ...

     Suggesting that choosing the Confederacy
was ill-fated early on ...

>... you just TRY and tell me that the dirt farmer 
>from little Washington whose crops and livestock
>had been commandeered by Union troops wasn't 
>fighting for home.

     *I* try to avoid hopeless causes, whether they
be slavery or divining the motives of specific 
individuals after the war has begun. Like the 
Vietnam Memorial, I respect all shrines to the 
heroism of those individuals who answered the call. 
But I don't let the sentiment mask the legitimacy 
of the broad motive(s) that started the calamity in 
the first place ...

>I think the only "straw dog" around here is the 
>assumption that every person (and every state) 
>fought the Civil War for the same reasons.

     Methinx that moving the focus from what 
started the War to coping with its existence, 
has resolved the need to torch stuffed animals.
At least for me ...

Best regards,

Bob
Bad defeats Good then self-destructs ...