I don't think people like you really realize how much you set yourselves up.
If the South had ended slavery, the War wouldn't have happened, period?
Well, if the northeast had not imported the slaves to begin with, then the Southern states would not have had slavery. Makes just about as much sense. Somebody had to furnish them, and so long as it was profitable, many northeastern merchants were sure willing to reap the profits. Read this, and associated sub-links:
Slavery in the North
And please spare your self-righteous breast-beating lecture on the history of the South's race-relations. The biggest difference in de-jure (i.e. "Jim Crow) laws in the South and "de-facto" in the North is that the former were just less hypocritical about it.
As even MLK said to the tune of "if you want to teach a white Southerner how to hate, send him to Chicago.." And Andrew Young noted that he was never so scared for his safety in the South as he was in the North when the Civil Rights movement came to affect them.
The kind of hypocricy demonstrated by many northerners on this subject makes me want to throw up. On the other hand, perhaps it is just flat ignorance of their own history. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
A great example is when Herman Talmadge of Georgia proposed a bill which -- this was when forced busing was fiirst mandated -- would regard de-facto in the North (South Boston was the first impact) as de-jure in the South when it came to segregated schools and "correction?.
Suddenly, many liberal northern politicians who had previously supported every federal measure aimed at the South, put their own mouths and agenda's in reverse. Talmadge later said he knew the bill wouldn't pass...but he wanted the opposition to have to go on record as being the "self-righteous hypocrites they really were."
Read more:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/638405-how-do-southern-schools-teach-about-6.html#ixzz1NekMnLyD
