Yeah, people like to teach stereotypical history and avoid actually doing real research because it's too much work. If history seems very cut and dry, or if one side is WAY demonized, then it's safe to assume that political agendas have gotten in the way somewhere and it becomes foolish to blindly repeat history as it's been told to you. You have to do the real research on your own instead of being told what to think.
The United States census only shows 1% of southern Americans were rich slave owners (and some of them are actually black, like in New Orleans, Louisiana). Most people aren't going to die in a war so rich people can have slaves. And, the Emaciation Proclamation (the document freeing the slaves in 1863) didn't come until half way through the war 2 years later.
History books also leave out that 4 northern states were slave owners at the start of the war--which is very bizarre if they hated slavery enough to kill their actual family over it. After all, even the president's wife was accused of treason because her brother was southern. During this period in time, slavery in the United States as a whole was already decreasing. It only remained more prominent in the south because of agriculture. In fact, the leader of the confederacy said that whether they won the war or not, slavery was already on it's way out.
The war was started (and is even documented) because the south succeeded from the United States, taking with it the majority of the agriculture (and thus money). The south succeeded because of little political representation in the white house and hard taxes and tariffs on the imports and exports being made on the southern states as a source of revenue.
The American north and south never really got along well since the nation's founding because southerners were primarily loyal to England in the early days and held onto a lot of English culture unlike the north (funny fact: this is why many southerners drink tea and northerners drink coffee--look back to the Boston Tea Party). In fact, England (who was slave free and did not support slavery) aided the south during the civil war by providing medicine and supplies to them. Unfortunately for the south, their succeeding from the union came at a HUGE financial blow to the north--and the north couldn't let that happen. Lincoln (president of the United States at the time) said in his election campaign that he had no intention of freeing slaves. Later, he's quoted that he proposed the freedom of slaves during the war hoping that the slaves would turn against the southern women and children at home and kill them, breaking southern moral. But, surprisingly, this did not happen as he expected. Most free slaves simply left peacefully or stayed with the white families (even after they were free). Some even ran away to join the Union, but they did not murder the families as Lincoln had hoped.
The famous and respectable Charles Dickens (author of "Oliver Twist" and other human rights novels) even wrote about the war: "The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
New Yorkers even began to riot in the streets when they were told that they were going to be drafted into the civil war. This wasn't because they liked or disliked slavery, but rather that they felt that this was the government's war. Further, nothern Americans were rather cruel to blacks even after the war, not allowing them jobs and burning their homes to chase them from their neighborhoods--so to say that the north fought because they thought the south treated them badly is a bit contradictory to actual events.
If history seems too convenient and simple--or if one side is WAY too demonized--the chances are that someone is telling biased history. Think about it, just like today, families in the United States have family members in both the north AND the south. Why would you kill your brother for someone else's behalf? EVEN MORE, if you were southern, why would you go to DIE so that some rich guys can have slaves? I wouldn't--and neither would most people.
People make WAY too big a deal out of this today. It's actually stupid when you see how angry people still are at the southern United States. It's like: What's the point? The heck YOU so mad about? Still hating the south and insulting them all the time is just ridiculous and childish. Mocking them and insulting them because of where they are from is just a way of saying you think you're better--and if you're saying that, then you've become the sort of person you supposedly say you hate.
okay okay, you got me, Lincoln was an ass even before the "sic semper tyranis", also he wasn't only trying to release slaves, he wanted them outta the country, and about the confederate and yankee flags, both of them cannot represent friendship at all, still, only one of them went to became the national flag, kinda shows who won.
i'd rather not see those two flags around as they symbolize when america was divided, man, if only south and north korea learned about our mistakes... those morons have been at it since forever, the onu should stop helping them and let them either fix their differences or stop fighting altogether to feed their people, two morons wanting power doesn't mean the country should be divided.
Yeah, biased media can get pretty ugly--and I think it only provokes and prolongs hard feelings about the war. It ended about 150 years ago, but people still use it to attack one another. Sadly, Americans often bicker over the dumbest things--which I guess can be expected when you have so many different cultures from all over the world in one place. There's bound to be internal conflict somewhere. But the best part about being American is that, when push comes to shove, I believe for the most part that we are all there for one another.
As far as the flag thing, that's what I found funny about the comic above because it definitely doesn't represent "friendship," but rather propaganda, tariffs, war, and a grievous battle between brothers over money. So, yeah. Definitely not a sign of friendship.
As for North and South Korea, I haven't researched it enough to confidently say either way. My only understanding of it right now is that one side believes in communism and the other side in democracy. But that's not enough to go on to express my thoughts on it.
Actually it stood for the promises the union government had made and weren't keeping to the southern states. Slavery was just a faze. The union had slaves as well before the whole "equality" movement happened, and even then women didn't have full rights quite yet. So the confederate flag stands for the fight to regain those promises and rights. So yeah, look into history before you go saying horrid stuff you know nothing about. Thank you.
Alright, "honey," I'm not saying I didn't understand what the quote meant, but rather that you used it as a nonsensical response where it didn't apply. Do you always jump in and tell people to "fix themselves?" What about yourself? You're the one being hostile against someone who was trying to defend their culture. Maybe you should mind your own business, or else at least provide a calm, mature, and more sound argument in a historical conversation apart from a catty, sarcastic, name-calling retort. Little-Miss-American wasn't being rude or offensive--but you sure were, and for no other reason than that her opinion was different from yours. A saying where I'm from: "It's better to let people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it." Grow up a little.