I had relatives on both sides of that mess. The Southern explanation has always been "States Rights"' but the North felt that meant States' rights to retain slavery and there was a very different view of that. One line in the Battle Hymn of the Republic says it all: "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free...." The current historical consensus is that that war was about slavery.
The Civil War was internally our most deadly war by far. Mitch McConnel feels the election of Barack Obama was adequate reparation for slavery. I disagree and point especially to the "Jim Crow" that began immediately after that war and is still with us. It may take serious financial reparations to make the point that Jim Crow is no more acceptable than is slavery.
My Southern ancestors moved to the North almost immediately after the war and hid their slave-holding past, which is why I was not aware of it until I found the slave documents several years ago. The other half of that family fought the South, and later two of the matriarchs quit the Daughters of the American Revolution, in which they had been prominent members, over the issue of Marion Anderson being denied permission to sing in the DAR Constitution Hall because of her race. The DAR subsequently changed policies (1939), which was and remains a hopeful sign for what activism can do.
From about 1825 to 1900, the Geledi and several Hawiyye clans operated a plantation system in the lower Shabelli valley very similar to that in the American South. It was said the Geledi settled down in order to let their slaves work. The formal slavery ended with the Italians, but the equivalent to Jim Crow is still with us and is almost as damaging. As should be obvious, my sentiments are Northern; don't get me started here.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.