The reason for the (US) civil war was to free the slaves.
In our education system it seems that any answer other than “to free the slaves” is incorrect, regardless of the reasons that motivated men to risk there lives.

That the Japanese made a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had intended the declaration of war to be delivered prior to the attack.

The greatest myth in history. There are so many of them that have been taught that they are now “truth.”

Yes, Japan did interned to declare war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course they planned to declare war about 45 minutes prior to the attack, but to them it was an honorable thing to do.

I think that the worst one is the stereotype given to the Confederate soldiers and the Southern people, and on the other side, of the North after the War Between the States ("Civil War"). They are depicted as being a slave-loving racist people who were fighting to keep their slaves, and the North to liberate them. Now I want to say here, that I am not a racist. I am in favor of complete equality of all races. Slavery was an evil that needed to be made right, but did not have to be done with war. This was just a ploy used by President Lincoln to make the war seem "moral" and lessen the opposition to it. Sure, slavery was a catalyst that started the whole process moving, but it was not the averarching reason in the minds of soldiers North and South alike as to why they were fighting. In fact General Grant, who was a slaveholder until after the war, said "If I though this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side" In reality, the war was fought because two distinct cultures had risen up that were basically a continuation of the debates between the Congressmen in the 1790's. The North saw the nation as states joined together into an unbreakable union, and were bound together forever. The South, on the other hand, saw the union as states voluntarily joined together to form a nation, but that these states did not surrender all their rights to the Federal government upon entry, but were clear and distinct units operating freely within the constraints of the Constitution. When the Federal government began to violate the Constitution, the Southern states appealed, and then seceded. They had every right to do this, as the Constitution clearly states that the rights not delegated to the Federal government specifically, are reserved to the states and the people respectively. Furthermore, the Federal government does not have the power to use military force against any state.

Anyway I could go on and onbut it would get pretty political and potentially boring! Oh, and if you find my post offensive, please don't show it on the forum, as we don't want this thread to be taken down, right. Just shoot me a PM, but please keep it civil. Thanks

Several have mentioned that the South could not have won the American civil war. i've thought it over and I agree/disagree.

I think the South could NOT have won an outright victory by offensive actions.

If, however, the South had fought strictly defensive battles I think that the population in the north would have grown weary and sought a truce. Basically the union would lose it's stomach to continue the war. As a result the Confederacy could have basically achieved her objectives with no deployment north of pre war positions.

A stretch perhaps but.....who knows?

That the 300 Spartans faced the Persian army all alone on the 3rd day - Actually there was about 1000 Thespians who stayed and died with the Spartans at Thermopoli.

Columbus discovered America. He discovered many islands in the western hemisphere but not the continent.

Maybe not myth, but the pervasive idea that Texas was the only state to be an independent nation. Hawaii was for great deal longer, and tiny unassuming Vermont managed longer than Texas.

Quoted Text

---

I think that the worst one is the stereotype given to the Confederate soldiers and the Southern people, and on the other side, of the North after the War Between the States ("Civil War"). They are depicted as being a slave-loving racist people who were fighting to keep their slaves, and the North to liberate them. Now I want to say here, that I am not a racist. I am in favor of complete equality of all races. Slavery was an evil that needed to be made right, but did not have to be done with war. This was just a ploy used by President Lincoln to make the war seem "moral" and lessen the opposition to it. Sure, slavery was a catalyst that started the whole process moving, but it was not the averarching reason in the minds of soldiers North and South alike as to why they were fighting. In fact General Grant, who was a slaveholder until after the war, said "If I though this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side" In reality, the war was fought because two distinct cultures had risen up that were basically a continuation of the debates between the Congressmen in the 1790's. The North saw the nation as states joined together into an unbreakable union, and were bound together forever. The South, on the other hand, saw the union as states voluntarily joined together to form a nation, but that these states did not surrender all their rights to the Federal government upon entry, but were clear and distinct units operating freely within the constraints of the Constitution. When the Federal government began to violate the Constitution, the Southern states appealed, and then seceded. They had every right to do this, as the Constitution clearly states that the rights not delegated to the Federal government specifically, are reserved to the states and the people respectively. Furthermore, the Federal government does not have the power to use military force against any state.

Anyway I could go on and onbut it would get pretty political and potentially boring! Oh, and if you find my post offensive, please don't show it on the forum, as we don't want this thread to be taken down, right. Just shoot me a PM, but please keep it civil. Thanks

---

I totally agree. Some friends were shocked when I told them that LIncoln would have kept slavery if it could have saved the union. THe war was about states rights not slavery. That didn't become an issue until halfway through the war when the north knew they were going to win. What is funny is when you ask someone who had more slaves Lee or Grant and they go for Lee thinking "obviously the leader of the northern Army wouldn't own any slaves" and you tell them that Grant owned more slaves than Lee (this doesn't count the fact that Grant soon after freed his slaves). Many of the Confederate generals didn't own a single slave and i want to say some where around 60% of the ANV owned no slaves and of those that did a high majority owned less than a dozen slaves. Only a very tiny majority owned 30 or more slaves.

Matt