Press-Republican

Opinion

September 17, 2013

Letters to the Editor: Sept. 17, 2013

(Continued)

While slavery was the excuse, the South had long wanted independence from the North. Lincoln’s election gave them that opportunity.

This war was fought by the North to preserve the Union. Ending slavery was a secondary reason. Most soldiers of the North and South weren’t willing to die to end or preserve slavery. But they were willing to give the full measure to either preserve the Union or gain independence.

Slavery would have been abolished, as the South was under pressure not just from the North but from much of Europe. However, that may have taken 15 or more years.

What would have been the plight of blacks in the South? The North wasn’t going to allow tens of thousands of freed slaves to immigrate. They would have remained in the South under southern white rule.

There North and the South would have contested the land all the way to California.

In the 20th Century, would we have been able to muster the resources to stop Hitler? Would the South and North have joined as allies, or could have either remained neutral or worse? Historians generally believe that if the war was not fought when it was, it would have been fought later with even greater suffering and loss.

Mr. Waterhouse, we do not consecrate a war. We celebrate those who fought and sacrificed for that war. This includes celebrating those veterans and their families from both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

DAVE DiRENZO

Plattsburgh

 

+++++

Diverting attention

TO THE EDITOR: Was it President Obama who said, ‘Don’t let a crisis go to waste?”

He seems to be trying to divert attention and public scrutiny away from Benghazi, the IRS scandals, Holder’s many missteps, guns to Mexican drug cartels and walking over the U.S. Constitution at will.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Editorial

Cheers and Jeers

Letters to the Editor
Speakout
In My Opinion

Recent Columns