The Civil War was about slavery. Deal.
I just read the letter from Joe Bialek (“Gun control and the Confederate flag” July 9-15, 2015). His comments and ideas regarding guns and the stars and bars were very reasonable and thoughtful. As for the end of the letter, he really dropped the ball. Contrary to what we read in many history books and what we hear from Civil War apologists, that war was about slavery, pure and simple. Not everyone in the north was anti-slavery (I’m not gonna die to free the slaves) and not everyone from the south was pro-slavery ( I’m not gonna die for rich slave owners). People who lived in the mountains were for the most part poor and did not own slaves. That is why we have a West Virginia and why we almost had a West Carolina and/or an Eastern Tennessee. The leaders in the north and south had to obfuscate the real reason for the war, which was slavery. Lincoln had to sell the war in the north as “preserving the union.” Davis had to sell the war in the south as “preserving states’ rights.” The constitution that the rebels drew up was first and foremost based on preserving the institution of slavery, the same slavery that their economy was based on. To say the South fought the war to “preserve states’ rights” is revisionist history and wishful thinking.
Room for all opinions
Editor’s Note: This letter is in response to the Advocate’s media analysis, “Racism in the Press, What was the Eagle thinking?” July 9-15, 2015, in which reporter Amanda Drane dissects the impact and purpose of a Berkshire Eagle opinion piece that offers odious suggestions for improving the lives of black Americans.
What was the Eagle thinking? Well, gee, maybe they were thinking that they were publishing an actual newspaper, in which an opinion column might state an opinion! And that publishing an opinion with which some disagree and some agree is an indication of a functioning newspaper! What does Drane want the Eagle to do — censor all opinions which are contrary to her own?
I am pooshoodog
Regarding Kenneth Simos’ letter, “Calling out pooshoodog,” July 2-8, 2015, I am pooshoodog, or rather, I am Phil Wilson from Northampton. I am befuddled as to how my online quip came to be published in the paper, and had no desire to “hide” behind a username. I assumed that when I clicked my response to William Santy’s letter, that I would be asked to identify myself, using my real name.
Mr. Simos asserts that, “I find, unfailingly, that those who offer sardonic critique of another’s observations have little to offer that is original.” Really? This statement of overbearing silliness, and absolute certainty makes “sardonic critique” a blessing. As long as there are inane utterances blotting public discourse, there will be sardonic critique, and I am flattered to be identified as a practitioner of that art.
As to Mr. Simos’ suggestion that sardonic critiques are always written under a “comic book pseudonym,” or that my words were written by some Valley Advocate writer … false and false. Hopefully, this letter will disabuse Mr. Simos of future spasms of certainty.
Editor’s Note: When we come across them, the Advocate will publish, in the print edition, particularly excellent and funny comments posted in response to articles on our website, www.valleyadvocate.com, or to our Facebook page.
