The American Civil War

[lasersailor184]

Yes, holden is correct.  Economics, state's rights, expansion...

All of these point to slavery as the cause.


The southern states supported State's Rights because they wanted to believe it was up to the state to decide whether or not slavery should exist in that state.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, holden is correct.  Economics, state's rights, expansion...

All of these point to slavery as the cause.


The southern states supported State's Rights because they wanted to believe it was up to the state to decide whether or not slavery should exist in that state.

What about the states that had and supported slavery that stayed loyal to the north even after the war began?
Even after the Emancipation Proclamation Slavery was still legal in these border states. As it only freed the slaves in those states and in many cases only parts of the states that were currently in rebellion



If slavery was "THE" cause and reason. why did these states not join the south?

and if it were "THE" cause and reason. Why wasnt the proclomation made at the outset and why not include ALL states and not only those in rebellion.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, holden is correct.  Economics, state's rights, expansion...

All of these point to slavery as the cause.


The southern states supported State's Rights because they wanted to believe it was up to the state to decide whether or not slavery should exist in that state.

So I must presume from this statement that the North, with its voting majority, had already made slavery illegal, and that THAT's what the war was started about....hmm...wait, wasn't slavery LEGAL in the North (though obviously rare) when the war began?

If the ONLY issue was slavery, the succession/war wouldnt have happened, it was a big chunk of MANY issues which contributed to the final result.  

(And Lasersailor184, Walter Williams is smarter than EVERYONE else here put together...I wouldnt want to debate that man  on whether the sky was blue, much lesss this stuff:D

[lasersailor184]

What about the states that had and supported slavery that stayed loyal to the north even after the war began?
Even after the Emancipation Proclamation Slavery was still legal in these border states. As it only freed the slaves in those states and in many cases only parts of the states that were currently in rebellion

Politics.  I would have thought you could put that together Dred.  

If those states have left, the war movement would have probably failed.

If slavery was "THE" cause and reason. why did these states not join the south?

Because they were not as radical and would have soon gotten rid of slavery (had the war not happened).  While some factions in the border states wanted to keep slaves (no where near the amount the true south had), they would not come anywhere close to seceding.  But you don't want to poke the pit bull in the balls if you don't have to.

and if it were "THE" cause and reason. Why wasnt the proclomation made at the outset and why not include ALL states and not only those in rebellion.

Politics again.  You claim your greatness after a success.  Otherwise you just sound stupid.

I.E. A Boxer doesn't yell out, "I'm the greatest!" after having the bloody pulp beaten out of him.

So I must presume from this statement that the North, with its voting majority, had already made slavery illegal, and that THAT's what the war was started about....hmm...wait, wasn't slavery LEGAL in the North (though obviously rare) when the war began?

Slavery was made legal because of a Supreme Court Ruling.  Property is Property no matter what state you are in.  This put any previous laws about slavery to the wind.  It was also another coal in the fire.

If the ONLY issue was slavery, the succession/war wouldnt have happened, it was a big chunk of MANY issues which contributed to the final result.

No, Slavery was the only issue.  All those other "Chunks" you talk about are subtopics of slavery.

And Lasersailor184, Walter Williams is smarter than EVERYONE else here put together...I wouldnt want to debate that man on whether the sky was blue, much lesss this stuff

It's not your fault that you didn't know.  But no one is smarter then I am.

[stantond]

If slaves would have counted as population in the south instead of property (by the Federal Government) the south would have had more representatives in congress.  The tariff's and laws leading to the civil war may not have happened.  I don't think the Northern states really cared at that time, imo.  South Carolina and other agricultural states were cash cows for feeding the North expansion.   If machinery were available instead of slave labor to grow the crops, the outcome would have been the same.




Regards,

Malta

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The North did not rize.

Ft Sumpter was fired upon by southern forces.  Lincoln made sure that the first shot was not fired by the Union.

The South fired on Sumpter beacuse it was a Union fort, and they wanted the Union out of SC and SC out of the union.  They wanted the Union out because as stated in the SC declaration, the newly elected president Lincoln was "hostile to slavery" and stated himself in his house divided speech that our country could not survive half slave and half free.  

So Ft Sumpter was the spark, but the reason Ft Sumpter was fired upon was the southern fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.

The states rights and economic arguments stem from the fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.

Exactly... The North did not rise and they wouldn't have either if Sumter wasn't fired upon. The Union would have just let the Confederacy go. In their worry over SC, the Confederacy lost their entire nation.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The North did not rize.

Ft Sumpter was fired upon by southern forces.  Lincoln made sure that the first shot was not fired by the Union.

The South fired on Sumpter beacuse it was a Union fort, and they wanted the Union out of SC and SC out of the union.  They wanted the Union out because as stated in the SC declaration, the newly elected president Lincoln was "hostile to slavery" and stated himself in his house divided speech that our country could not survive half slave and half free.  

So Ft Sumpter was the spark, but the reason Ft Sumpter was fired upon was the southern fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.

The states rights and economic arguments stem from the fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.

I'd think that someone so knowledgeable of our nation's history would know how to spell  "Ft. Sumter"

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Samiam
It is more accurate to say that slavery was the fundamental issue behind the civil warand that the political spin is that it was all about states rights than vice versa.

You can make a valid point that it wasn't about slavery in the sense that southerners we all evil spirited people who enjoyed slavery and relished in dehumanizing an entire race of people. Rather, in fact, it was about preserving slavery because the economy of the south was largely dependent on it - so yes, it was economic. But slavery was still at the heart of the issue.

As for the confederate flag: I can see how many people see it as their heritage and don't believe there is anything racial about it.


But try to look at it this way:

We revere the United States flag not simply because it is our heritage, but because of all that it symbolizes - freedom, liberty, justice. To many, the confederate flag doesn't just represent a southern heritage, it symbolizes the principles and values that went into the creation of the confederacy and slavery was right up there on the list.

Can't you see that it's perfectly understandible how someone might take offence at the continued exhaltation of a symbol that represented a "nation" that was, by and large, formed on the principle of legalized slavery?

Amazing you type all of this, and are incorrect within the first sentence.  

The United States Civil War was based on the Issue of State Rights.  But, this can go around and around.  I'm just glad I read and COMPREHEND.  

Karaya

[lasersailor184]

The United States Civil War was based on the Issue of State Rights.

No, they wanted it to be states rights for the sole reason they wanted to be the one to choose whether or not slavery was legal.

Slavery.

[Holden McGroin]

My apologies bj229r...

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, they wanted it to be states rights for the sole reason they wanted to be the one to choose whether or not slavery was legal.

Slavery.

As stated previous, I comprehend what I read.  

Karaya

[Jackal1]

So, does it continue to effect our lives , as previously asked?
  I`d have to answer yes, to a certain degree.
  It`s quite evident in this thread that not even the cause and or causes of the civil war are agreed upon to date.
  To lighten things up a bit for those old enoung to remember the Clampetts....Granny stated numerous times that the reported winning of the war by the north was nothing more than a Yankee rumor. I tend to agree.

[lazs2]

yep... I would say that the states rights aspect does indeed continue to affect our lives.

It is chicken and egg... if you say that all economic factors that caused the civil war were slavery based then you would also have to admit that even if that were true...  it was not the lasting cause or the lasting affect of the civil war... today... it is only the issue of states rights that has survived... that is still an issue and that is the thing that lasted...

some day soon it may become again... and the less perceptive will blame it on whatever other cause is ancillerary to it.

lazs

[Mayhem]

Originally posted by TequilaChaser
If Seeker was flame baiting, trolling, offending other members, I am Damn sure he did not do it intentionally and am personally upset to see a Friend/squadmate quit the game over the selecticism of who gets PNG, whose threads get edited and who brown noses the ones with power.

If you gonna lock someone out on the message boards, at least have the common courtesy to send them an email explaining why they have been banned/locked out of their BBS account.

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, specially after all the other BS I see on these very same boards day in and day out.


1 ask a uestion on how something that happened many many moons ago still affects people to day in regards to one country, an outsider responds , prob not knowing he was actually flamebaiting or trolling because he is across the big pond in another country. Not making any excuse here, just think it was a matter of misunderstanding.

anyhow, looks like the Damned just lost another squad member, HTC just lost another longtime account holder / AH Community Member

  Seeker



TC
The Damned

Seeker

Sorry to see ya go bud. This keeps up and we're gunna have to find somewhere else to play.

[TequilaChaser]

Originally posted by Nash
Actually, the idea of a US vs Canada war becomes a fascinating topic in light of the fact that, well it turns out, you can't even beat "gooks" or "camel jockies." Talk about over playing your hand - and don't think folks aint noticing.

Nah... I'm wondering about yer desire to beat up on eachother.

HOw can one person slip by continously posting things like

well it turns out, you can't even beat "gooks" or "camel jockies."

while another person:

Originally posted by Seeker

is PNG..............

I do not get it.............

TC