Random Thoughts and Questions
by Alex Symington…….
If the American Civil War hadn’t happened back in 1860 does anyone out there believe it never would have happened and enslavement of Africans and their descendants would be ongoing to this day? If you answered, “yes” you may stop reading now and go back to your bunker with your guns and canned goods. The answer is, of course, it was inevitable. The economic engine of the southern “one percent” antebellum days of African slave labor was unsustainable and doomed by the combination of the northern industrial revolution and the simply untenable immoral institution that it was.
So my question is why are these clowns, both north and south, proudly waving Confederate flags as if the war never happened? As if the south won? Are they saying slavery was a good thing? Do they even think about what they are doing on the planet from one flaming racist thought to the next? How would Dylann Roof’s world view be enacted? Reality does not interest these Orcs.
To the rational mind there is no explaining the blind hate of and by people except to say it exists. I overheard a man in a coffee shop enthusiastically proclaim, “I’m a Trump man all the way!” Another asked him why and he said, “I like him because he is just saying what EVERYONE is thinking.” From what I have heard Trump say that isn’t necessarily a good thing unless you are a fellow xenophobic, racist misogynist. Sure, we all like and respect a person that isn’t afraid to say what’s on their mind, but one needs to listen to the content of their pronouncements before championing them.
Speaking of doubling down has anyone ever wondered what would have happened if Bill Clinton had just come out and said, “Yes, I had sex with that woman, in fact I am a very sexually active guy. I have a tough job and I need stress relief.” Do you think if he’d just been honest people would have been ok with his philandering? I mean, after all he was just doing what EVERYONE was doing or wanted to do. Right?
Ever wonder why a lot people that profess to be Christian and moral are neither. We have a new Pope in the Vatican pointing out that poor people around the world are suffering because hyper-capitalist behavior has turned human beings into a disposable commodity and the Pope is pointing out the obvious that that was never a tenet of Christ’s teachings. In fact he has come right out and said, “by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion” and he also sees climate change for what it is; “The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming.”
What would Jesus do? Rape and pillage the planet as if we have a spare one lurking about? Deny the majority of people the basic necessities of life by commoditizing food and water so to maximize the income for a handful of elites? I don’t think so. Pope Francis may be the Church’s first truly Christian pope and the one percent does not like it. If you get right down to it Jesus was a Jewish socialist that thought love was the most important and powerful force in this world and beyond and as the Beatles said, it was “all you need.”
One more thought on Donald Trump, the right wing and the comic theater of the absurd that is presidential politics. As a victim of age, in the sense I remember a time when the American people would never ever have considered the soft bodied, combed-over, egomaniacal billionaire as a legitimate contender for the highest office in the land. However we live in a new culture where greed and money and celebrity and bling are worshipped and held in high regard. The love of money and contempt for the poor and weak and powerless have been nurtured and coaxed along to the point that we have lost all perspective and some of us are no longer able to make intelligent choices. Donald Trump?! Really?!
Trump is the monster we (along with FOX) created. I am no longer surprised by anything my fellow Americans say or do. It’s been a nice ride, but shy a serious revolution in thought and action the ride is almost over.
More From Other Sources:
Alex,
Missed you. I am extremely happy and relieved by your safe return.
The ingenious insights, reasoned perspectives and powerful illustrations shared in your article are creatively put together and pleasant to read.
As usual, your article stimulates thought and reflection. I’m glad you’re back. Thank you.
if the civil war was inevitable, and relieving 600,000 Americans of their lives a necessary requisite to the deconstruction of the South and the institution of slavery, why are we the only nation that had to engage in wholesale murder to do so?
all of the European nations, and those of the Caribbean and South America managed to escape slaughtering their own people while evolving out of slavery, but we did not. Hmmm…
maybe it because the civil war was not about slavery or race?
please, forget about your high school and college education, and pick up a historical book or article by a real academic researcher, not a paid for government shill.
i have expounded on this topic several times, even provided links (i think) to some credible scholarship, yet you continue to regurgitate the nonsense you learned beginning in grade school.
“reality does not interest these orcs.” words to live by, no?
Alex, First off, good to have you back, I missed you. I do believe the most relevant thing for me in this article is your discussion of the Pope. He is really a phenomena, so much so that I fear for his life. Imagine, an honest to god Pope actually representing Christian values!! Can the powers to be let that go on? I fear for his life. I’d also like to respond to my good friend Keysbum, who’s intellect I’ve always respected. Regardless of what anyone thinks was the real reason for the Civil War, the issues of slavery and racism were certainly perceived as such reasons by the mass of people, and that is perhaps more important than whatever reasons you attribute to it in addition. And the Latin America analogy is not right on. Sure, no civil wars there, but the societies that now exist there are not that different from their slave days, that is, highly stratified, lacking middle classes, and, still, to some extent, racially discriminatory. Also, if I’m not mistaken, in Brazil, slavery lasted way past our own Civil War. Great to hear from you again Alex, ciao, PCM
Mr.Grapel, so how does the stratified society of brazil differ from our own? you just made the argument that the war was not about slavery and racism otherwise the phenomena you delineate would not be the prevalent paradigm.
slavery and racism most certainly continue to exist in our country. it is just disguised as something else. see my response to the first article about white only housing. one of the most salient results of that nefarious agenda of the u.s. government was to permanently, at least through now, deprive the wealth accumulation of blacks to mirror whites. when you are not allowed to invest in a home and build equity as the whites were in the 30-50’s, you are permanently left behind economically. you are consigned to the holding pens (read inner city ghettos) instead of the plantation and exploited to do the menial labor scorned by the “better class.”
To Keysbum,
You made an interesting point in your comments. “All of the European nations, and those of the Caribbean and South America managed to escape slaughtering their own people while evolving out of slavery”, however, it is far from being true. There was plenty of bloodshed and many massacres behind these People securing their independence.
In my readings I came across the following: ” Colonel Ty Seidule, the head of the history department at the US Military Academy at West Point; clearly and comprehensively explains why the Civil War was, in fact, motivated by the South’s desire to preserve slavery. As Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens put it, “Our new government was founded on slavery.”
Blessings & Respect…
remember, his allegiance is to the government and its perspective. always remember also that it is the victor who gets to write the history.
uprisings, small rebellions, are not what we are discussing. this was the wholesale slaughter of 2% of the population; that would be some 6-7 million people today.
Mr. Symington, i will answer your query that you sent to my personal e-mail in the Blue Paper.
but for now, explain how Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, W. Virgina, and Maryland, ALL slave states, fought for the North?
why was slavery still allowed and practiced in the North during the war?
why did union generals themselves use slaves?
Keysbum,
This from a contribution of mine last July third…”American Exceptionalism” in reference to the Civil War.Keysbum,
‘”Ta-Nehisi Coates sets the record straight in his essay, “What This Cruel War Was Over” by quoting the leadership of the southern rebellion. There is no gray area, pardon the play on words, in the intent and reasoning of secession by the southern states. A Confederate South Carolina proclaimed,” …A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”
Mississippi reasoned, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…”
One more from our friends in Texas,”… the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations…”
Coates goes on to debunk any notion that there was ever anything noble in the south’s motivation to secede and maintain the bondage of African slaves and in actuality was to increase land acquisition and enslave millions more. The Confederate wet dream was to expand further south into Mexico and the tropics to corner the market of the two biggest commodities at the time, sugar and cotton. So please spare me the “proud heritage” and “state’s rights” crap.”
To say slavery was not a major issue in the civil war is frankly bizarre. I do absolutely agree it is ongoing in more subtle ways and increasingly more blatant and disturbing than ever, but I still say the war was inevitable. Maybe if McClellan had attacked the rebel forces on the Potomac in the beginnings of the rebellion he might have ended it before it started. If if if…It happened as it happened.
Keysbum,
Professor Seidule from West Point has presented the secession documents from every Confederate state. Within each document is a clause protecting the South’s “peculiar institution”. This peculiarity is slavery. To protect the institution of slavery, is why these states left the Union.
This war was not about states’ rights. Before secession, the professor points out that slave states were happy to circumvent states’ rights when it suited them.
For example, Mississippi once complained that New York’s notion of states’ rights was too strong — because it prevented Mississippi slaveowners from bringing their slaves up North. This war wasn’t about the principle of federal power; it was about the threat that the federal government might eventually use that power to abolish slavery…
in what universe has a war ever been fought over a moral issue? you really think the average person back then, poor and illiterate, struggling through life everyday, North or South, spent any time contemplating the misfortune of the slave? and furthermore decided it was worth risking their lives over? come now…
you had 4 slave states that fought for the North. you had 4 slave states reject secession until AFTER the hostilities. if slavery were the dominant issue, or of any consequence, they would ALL have been on board from the get go.
and again, it was not the South that went to war; it was the North. do you think that Lincoln, who openly opined that blacks should be put on ships and sent back to Africa, was so morally outraged by slavery that he killed 1 out of every 50 Americans to end it?
Keysbum,
You significantly underestimate the number of world-wide killings, child rape, torture, suffering and pain that has been inflicted upon humanity, in the name of slavery. Europe, the Caribbean & South America have been cruel hot beds for blood shedding and barbarism, in the name of slavery.
In Haiti alone, one third (33 1/3 %) of the population was murdered during their slave rebellions. You gasp at a 2% causality rate during our civil war; and appear to imply a conspiracy of sort is responsible for, in your mind, that large percentage.
One small island, from all the land masses you provided; refutes your argument.
I don’t not need to go any farther.
Being dismissive and insulting another’s viewpoint has never drawn the best out of me. I enjoy our reportage in its present form. Recognizing that I’m not a ‘primary source’ in many historical presentations, allows me to welcome and enjoy another’s perspective.
i wish you guys would address the points I bring up. that’s what debate is. i answer your points, I wish you would answer mine (to all of not just Mr. Donnelly).
but really, Mr. Donnelly, you are equating two different things. if the slaves rose up and killed every white guy they could find, then I would applaud and say job well done. but we are discussing the cause of a civil war, a war that killed 1 out of every 50 people in the country. every other nation that engaged in slavery evolved out of that institution without institutionalized self-murder, save us. why is that?
what you are arguing is not germane to the discussion; it has no relevance because it is a different topic.
sorry if you felt insulted; it was not my intent, and I really fail to see where i said anything even remotely condescending. you know me, if vituperation were my goal, i do believe i could find the words that would leave no uncertainty as to my intent.
the constitution of the Confederate States of America stated that any state that wanted to abolish slavery could do so at any time. virginia, n. carolina, tennessee, and arkansas did not secede until after the war started, and in fact voted not to secede prior to that. those states reacted to the aggression.
those are historical facts, not open to interpretation.
you give my some contemporary hack author, who is black, and courting an agenda, writing for a magazine that Salon once characterized as “lacking in historical perspective” and asking “is the Atlantic making us stupid?” as your source.
i’ll stick with mine.
extracting quotes from people of the era, no matter their affiliation, is not historical fact. it’s no more historical fact than in 150 years looking back at some statement from Louie Gohmert and stating that was official government policy.
if McClellan had attacked, he likely would have been routed as he was an incompetent. remember, at the beginning of the war the CSA was handing Lincoln and his army their butts.
no one is saying slavery was not an issue, but it was not THE issue, and certainly not the reason 600,000 people gave their lives for. a cursory look at Lincolns views and actions will disavow you of that nonsense immediately. remember, it was the North who invaded the South. the South did not start the war to protect slavery, they fought to protect themselves. the war was totally on Lincoln and his masters.
Jesus was a PALESTINIAN.
Jesus said, Love thy neighbor as yourself.
Jews say, We are the Chosen People and therefore have a right to rule over the Goyim.
Jesus told the Jew Money Changers (Bankers) to go fornk themselves.
Jesus was NOT A JEW.
Name Of Slave Ships And Their Owners:
The ‘Abigail-Caracoa’ – Aaron Lopez, Moses Levy, Jacob Crown
Isaac Levy and Nathan Simpson
The’Nassau’ – Moses Levy
The ‘Four Sisters’ – Moses Levy
The ‘Anne’ & The ‘Eliza’ – Justus Bosch and John Abrams
The ‘Prudent Betty’ – Henry Cruger and Jacob Phoenix
The ‘Hester’ – Mordecai and David Gomez
The ‘Elizabeth’ – Mordecai and David Gomez
The ‘Antigua’ – Nathan Marston and Abram Lyell
The ‘Betsy’ – Wm. De Woolf
The ‘Polly’ – James De Woolf
The ‘White Horse’ – Jan de Sweevts
The ‘Expedition’ – John and Jacob Roosevelt
The ‘Charlotte’ – Moses and Sam Levy and Jacob Franks
The ‘Franks’ – Moses and Sam Levy
Keysbum, You seemed to be making the argument that slavery and such had little to do with the Civil War, backing it up by saying Latin America got rid of it without a war. I say this is not relevant because something much closer to slavery still exists in Latin America than here. They really haven’t gotten rid of it yet. As for the stratification and racism and such, you refuse to deal in shades of gray. What exists in today’s Latin America is much more stratified and petrified than what exists here, even if what exists here is still way too imperfect. And any analogy with Europe to mid 19th century America is really stretching it. The socio-economic situation almost has no resemblance. ciao, PCM
we can argue whether or not our proximity to latin america in terms of slavery is markedly different or not….
when you have 1 out of every 6 people dependent on the government for food and consigned an entire race of people to inner city hell holes with little to no opportunity to escape a life of abject servitude to crap wages and jobs, it’s a hard argument to make.
Keysbum,
I believe the tenet to be discussed is the ‘Slaughtering of People’; not only the ‘Slaughtering of their own People’. Waiting for those who have enslaved me to ‘Evolve’; while they beat, rape and murder my children, might not be the best course of action to pursue.
Slavery is not a matter of race-color or blackness; after their homes and farms were taken, my white great, great grand uncles were tortured and hung by their white overlords; for attempting to feed their families, who were starving to death. These men fished and secured some milk and meat from animals they once owned, living on the property that had been seized from them, for no legal purpose.
Violence, murder, child rape, killings and war have always been inseparable from the institution of slavery, wherever it existed.
As in a plethora of nations, Peoples of South America remain in a ‘conditioned society’ that pulsates with slave blood. Indigenous people of every tribe and description, are barely kept alive in a continuum of violence, squalor, exploitation and subjugation; so that they may serve their Masters.
Perhaps a cataclysmic bloodletting, forever breaking the grasp and stranglehold applied to a slave population is necessary and a prerequisite for liberation.
Members of my family fought in the civil war. Rather than being ashamed or second guessing their participation in that war, they believed as Abraham Lincoln; their wounds and the carnage associated with the war were brought upon our Nation, As Punishment, for the ‘abomination of slavery”.
Let me share what I believe to be one reasoned position for the cause of our Civil War.
“The Northern and Southern sections of the United States developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed. All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as state’s rights versus federal rights”.
“However, Slavery and the debate over the future of Slavery; was the burning issue that led to the disruption of the union. This dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence”.
KB,
I’m perplexed. You sent me the link to an article in a rather obscure publication, The Atlanta Blackstar, I read it and concurred with it and you. I in turn sent you an article written by the editor of Atlantic magazine elaborating in detail the same information and also concurring with what you sent me. Yet you rant at me about the Atlantic and the author being simply opinion and agenda driven. Even when someone agrees with you you want to fight. Maybe I am dense, but I don’t get it.
easily explained. we are talking about two different things. the articles concerning the housing segregation we are in complete harmony. the articles concerning the civil war we are not.
the article you referenced was by a journalist, Coates, opining through a prejudicial lens of mis-education, lack of research, and an agenda to support his race and the popular, accepted narrative. the article i referenced, while authored by a journalist, was directly based on the research of a real historian (Richard Rothstein) from the Economic Policy Institute, a non-profit think tank.
my point is that the references on which one formulates their view should be scrutinized for veracity. just pulling up an article on the Internet about the civil war is insufficient.you have to look at who authors the piece, and what organization they come from. Mr. Donnelly puts his confidence in a soldier from West Point to tell him about the civil war. gee, ya think that guy is going to tell you how norhern troops mowed down thousands of slaves (you know, the ones they were “fighting” for) as they marched through the south? you think that guy is in any way going to provide a narrative that puts the federal government, his employer, in a negative light? and do you think Coates, a black guy, writing for a main stream publication is going to go against the grain and risk being labeled a heretic, a traitor to his race, or an Uncle Tom if he were to expose (if he knew) that Lincoln was a racist and wanted to ship him and his kind back to Africa?
the source of the scholarship counts. you wouldn’t believe Sean Hannity would you? why would you believe something you read on the Internet without checking out the author?
Keysbum,
Colonel Ty Seidule is Professor and Head of the Department of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point
Education:
Washington and Lee University, B.A. Cum Laude, 1984
The Ohio State University, M.A. 1994
The Ohio State University, Ph.D. 1997
Fellowships:
National Security Fellow to the Naval Postgraduate School
Publication:
Author of 5 books, 9 Chapters & Articles…
Winner of 2015 Army Historical Foundation Distinguished Writing Award
Recognitions:
Colonel Seidule is the senior editor of “‘The West Point History of Warfare”, a 71-chapter military history enhanced e-book featuring animated maps, interactive graphics, 3D images, and primary source accounts. He is the editor of “The West Point History of the Civil War” (2014).
Recipient:
Faculty Teaching Excellence Award
and Bush Jr. went to Yale and Harvard, what’s your point?
the victors write the history. lets say you wanted to write an expose’ on West Point; who would you see as more credible in providing an unbridled report, this colonel guy, or an independent professional historian?
nothing against the good colonel, but I’d go with the historian.
Keysbum, One out of Six? I agree, that is abhorrent, but compared to Latin America it is almost nirvana. Not to mention the fact that even those in our ghettos and rural poverty areas have perks almost all “campesinos” and urban poor in Latin America would swoon for — AC, maybe a car, a color TV, etc. I agree, there are many similarities, but it is, nevertheless, qualitatively different … by a wide margin. ciao, PCM
let’s see, the poverty rate in the U.S. is over 15% and rising, while the poverty rate in Brazil is 11% and falling.
i am surprised that Post Consumer Man would equate material wealth with well being.
we are different cultures with different needs. it’s like saying saying New Yorkers are poorer than Los Angelenos because most of them do not own cars, and just about all in LA do. different cultures, different needs.
Keysbum, OK, let’s put it like this: the caloric intake of America’s poor, the housing of America’s poor, and other minimal perks of material life that even PCM deem necessary, are far superior in America than in most of Latin America. As for Brazil, I hope your figures are correct, but Brazil is home to some of the most violent, poor “favelas” in the world. Nasty shit, much worse than here. ciao, PCM
Keysbum,
An enfeebled self-analysis can trigger an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Thinking and writing something down, doesn’t make it true.
Assessing the merits and scholarship of the ‘good old colonel’, is a matter of record. U.S. News & World Report has ranked West Point as #1, “Top Public Liberal Arts College” for 3 consecutive years. This is the institution where the ‘good old colonel’ is Professor and Head of the Department of History.
It takes no thought, no consideration, no character and no talent to be a fault-finder; intent on discrediting the value and worth of an accomplished scholar, simply because their ideas and conclusions are dissimilar to the ones they hold.
Affording another their do, based on the scholarly performance of their duties; even though their findings might contradict my positions; is the mark of a wise, poised and sensible individual.
John, I am overwhelmingly in agreement with your statements here with regard to the academic scholarship pertaining to the slavery issue and our Civil War. One must look in many different directions to unravel the meaning of what has happened in history, how it is interpreted, and what conclusions we come to. In this case, taking all evidence into consideration, I feel as if slavery had a substantial role in our Civil War, and believe Keysbum is being somewhat contrary here. But … one must also be wary of relying too much on publications like US News and World Report. They have their dog in this fight and are not always objective. Certainly, glorifying our most important military academy would not be difficult for them. But … all in all, I’m with you here. Great stuff
wow… the insults are flying today….
did you watch the video that the dear colonel posted? he even states that slavery was not an issue in the war until after it was already under way. hence, to me, and my “enfeebled self-analysis” that means the war was not about slavery. he admits it himself. the dear colonel then goes on to praise the great morality of the boys in blue and showers them with praise for being so noble and righteous. i guess he forgot to mention that right after the civil war, these moral and humanistic “blue bellies,” “his army,” went out west and started the systematic extermination of the native americans. ooops….
so we have a war that kills 600,000+ to “save” people, then go right out and slaughter other people; sort of destroys that whole “we care about people” thing, doesn’t it?
c’mon Mr. Donnelly, your too intelligent to fall for this nonsense.
Keysbum,
No insults here. My previous comment to you is a statement of fact, applicable to anyone who habitually finds fault, complains, or objects; especially in a petty way, to issues that are by definition open for discussion and interpretation.
After again reviewing the compelling video that you referenced, with all due respect Keysbum, I am bewildered, perplexed and dumfounded by your interpretation and assertion of what Professor Colonel Ty Seidule proffered during his presentation. I find it hard to believe that you’re unaware of your statements being off point.
Here again, perhaps I’m off the beam, unable to grasp the meaning of what is before me.
Keysbum, I’ve come to appreciate, value and look forward to your insights and perspectives, regarding an abundance of positions and information that you’ve brought to our attention.
However, I’m afraid that your inflexibility and impassioned analysis of a particular historical event (civil war), of which there are not any ‘primary sources’; along with your resolute and steadfast criticism of any credible source, whom might disagree with your analysis; weakens and discredits your stature as an individual that can be relied upon to present a complete, comprehensive and exhaustive description; of all the details, divergent perspectives and evolving understandings that comprised our Civil War.
I know of myself, I am nothing; incapable of performing to the high calling expected of me.
I don’t want to be right or correct regarding our discussion on this matter. As an individual I am under construction. My commitment has been towards seeking and learning the truth, not to being consistent.
For those who would like to view the video in question and make their own decision, it can be located via a browser insertion: “Was the Civil War fought over slavery?: Here’s the video”. It last 5 minutes and 38 seconds. It has been viewed by 6,317,658 individuals. The video I viewed was published on Aug. 11, 2015; at “Salon”.
Keysbum, I’ve grown to admire and respect your intellectual capacity. I’ve contacted you concerning screen/plays and books that I’m writing.
You, Ty Seidule, myself, Alex and Jerome; along with everyone involved in this discussion, are correct. We are all entitled to our assessments and views, as to the causes of the Civil War.
at the 4 minute mark in the video the good colonel states that Lincoln started the war to keep the union together, and that slavery became paramount only later. now, i may not have a ph.d in history from ohio state, but that clearly says to me that even the good colonel admits slavery was not the cause of the civil war.
prior to the civil war we were slaughtering mexicans to expand out west, and post civil war we were slaughtering indians to tame the west. so your argument is that in between, we became moral and righteous, and the plight of the african-american suddenly arose in the consciousness of poor, illiterate americans, into a cause celebre.
right.
Causes of the Civil War. This has been debated for 150 years. It is well documented why the states seceded. It is important to note that Lincoln was a railroad lawyer before he was President. The Northern Industrial Railroad Barons paid Lincoln’s campaign. The south paid most all of the taxes for the whole country at that time and most of that tax money went to the Railroad Barons to build railways for western expansion. It was taxation without representation. The south didn’t mind paying the taxes as long as they got something in return and they didn’t get anything in return. The Protective Tariffs were mentioned in the reasons why South Carolina seceded. I will use South Carolina because that’s where the war started. Seven million dollars was suppose to be appropriated by the Federal Government for the upkeep of the harbors and lighthouses. Not one red cent was sent to South Carolina. Yes slavery was mentioned and property rights were also. The south saw Lincoln as what he really was, “a man that was going to do everything he could for the Northern Railroad Barons and nothing for the south.”
Lincoln was about empire and nothing but empire. Keeping the Union together and keeping those southern tax dollars flowing into the hands of the Northern Railroad Barons was more important than slavery.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/ken-burns-sets-confederate-flag-lovers-straight-its-about-slavery-slavery-slavery/
ken burns is a film maker, not a research historian. he also makes his films for mainstream media outlets and of course follows the agenda that they have, which is of course the government/corporate one. sorry, not a credible source.