Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oakranger on October 10, 2008, 03:03:52 PM
-
I have been doing historic reenactment for a long time. I cover F&I War up to western frontier. Most of my cariter is a white man that was adapted by the Iroquois nation as a young age. Now i am a 30 something scoutmen that goes by the name "Small Load". I received this name in a Civil War event because i had my 2nd Brown Bess, a .75 cal flint lock. Most of the weapons where Springfield's, enfield, carbine, Spencer, sharps. The cal. on these are .54 or less.
Anyway, let me get to the quesion. Can you tell me what trigger the American Civial War started? I know most of the people will say slavery. Lets see if you are as smart as you think you are.
-
It is slavery. Well, not quite.
Slavery caused the split. Abraham Lincoln caused the Civil War.
-
uhhh....i'll take "spell check inventors for 100 alex..."
:cool:
-
It's called not wanting to be strong armed by the Federal govt.
-
Would think that you would have to call it an issue of states rights that when boiled down, was an issue over slavery.
-
the attack on FT.Sumter
-
Emotionally it was slavery.
But the underlying trigger was the question of whether or not a state had the right leave the Union.
-
State's rights.
It is slavery. Well, not quite.
Slavery caused the split. Abraham Lincoln caused the Civil War.
This is probably the closest to what really happened. :aok
There were several reasons, so this bit of history is greatly simplified:
North and South developed very different economies, with the South's agrarian economy relying heavily on cheap/free labor (slaves). The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century produced a huge demand for slaves in the south (the cotton gin made cotton very profitable), making the south essentially a one crop economy, and completely dependent on slavery. Combine with this the fact that new states were being added to the union at the time, and the resulting argument over whether these states would be "free" or "slave" states produced a huge rift in Congress and the country as a whole (although delayed by the Compromise of 1850). Lincoln's position was that all future states would be free states.
At the core of this argument was the issue of State's Rights, whether the States were self-determinant, or whether they answered to the federal government. When South Carolina seceded, it did so because it felt (rightfully so) that Lincoln was anti-slavery and more sympathetic to Northern interests. Following it's secession, the government of S. Carolina ordered Washington to get it's troops out of Ft. Sumter. Lincoln told S. Carolina to "stick it" and sent ships to reinforce the Northern army garrison. This is when the sh*t hit the fan.
So yeah, lots of causes, but the core disagreement: State's Rights.
(btw, seven other states had already seceded by the time Lincoln became president)
-
Emotionally it was slavery.
But the underlying trigger was the question of whether or not a state had the right leave the Union.
Any state in the can sprat them self from U.S.,there is no law that says they can't. Vermont was in talks to sprat them self from the U.S about a year ago.
-
Can you tell me what trigger the American Civial War started?
Take it from the horses mouth:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm)
I think the key line from Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
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. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
At the risk of being political, I believe that the political issue was that the slave states were being out voted in the federal legistature, and without the expansion of slavery into expanded country, the slave states would be a smaller and smaller voting block, and the economic and social structure of the south was doomed without a split from the Union.
The economic and social structure of the south was slavery.
-
You know the best thing you could do is simply go find a history book and look at the issues. It's difficult to think that someone who has spent years doing re enactments has no real feel for the conflict you've been playing at.
-
Some good answers. Its important to remember that at the time of the creation of the nation all the states had legalized slavery and indebted servitude. The fact that it disappeared in the north and stayed on in the south had more to do with climate conditions, crops grown, northern industrial growth, then it had to do with moral idealism.
And there were decades of causes, other then slavery, that had as much or more impact on an eventual conflict. Slavery tended to be the lightening rod that kept opinion red hot, most of all when new territories/states were annexed into the Union and the question of whether to allow slavery in them was raised.
At the same time I'd bet if you asked Union soldiers why they fought 99% would either answer "to preserve the Union", or, "because we were forced to". A southerner would answer the same question, "to preserve our rights". And anyone who thinks millions of white men in the 1860s, on either side, would fight a terrible 4 year war over slavery has a far to high opinion on human beings. The fact is most people on either side couldn't really have cared less about slavery. Those in the north, most of them, didn't think it a good enough reason to fight. And most in the south didn't own any.
The thing is the question of where Federal powers end, and the powers of the States begin, has been a contentious issue from day 1 to today. In 1861 War broke out over it, even today there is constant litigation and political maneuvering over who has power and when. The Federal Govt. or the individual States.
It was the position of The Confederacy that America was a Union ruled by consent and that the Southern states had a Constitutional right to secede from it. The north believed The Constitution formed a Union that was perpetual couldn't be divided and that talk of secession was rebellious.
And that! was the cause of The Civil War.
-
You know the best thing you could do is simply go find a history book and look at the issues. It's difficult to think that someone who has spent years doing re enactments has no real feel for the conflict you've been playing at.
LOL, you obviously don't know why people do historic reenactment.
-
Because they think they look cute to the women?
-
lol, you're called 'small load' (there I said it...) :lol :lol
Okay, now to be serious, I think the first or 2nd post got it right on the money. :P
I would say though, that it was when they wrote in the Declaration or Constitution (dont remember which one) 'All men are created equal'
-
LOL, you obviously don't know why people do historic reenactment.
Actually I have met several re enactors. They all had a pretty darn good grasp of the subject they were re enacting. It was the interest in the actual subject that sparked their participation in re enacting the conflict. They were also able to spell the subject they were re enacting as well as discussing it in an erudite manner. They were able to frame a question in a manner to actually ask something specific. Something along the lines of "What was the point at which hostilities started for the Civil War?" or "What was the political situation that started the schism between the Northern and Southern states that resulted in open conflict?
In short I reiterate that your best source of information on the subject would be a history book, then bring a discussion.
-
Some good answers. Its important to remember that at the time of the creation of the nation all the states had legalized slavery and indebted servitude. The fact that it disappeared in the north and stayed on in the south had more to do with climate conditions, crops grown, northern industrial growth, then it had to do with moral idealism.
And there were decades of causes, other then slavery, that had as much or more impact on an eventual conflict. Slavery tended to be the lightening rod that kept opinion red hot, most of all when new territories/states were annexed into the Union and the question of whether to allow slavery in them was raised.
At the same time I'd bet if you asked Union soldiers why they fought 99% would either answer "to preserve the Union", or, "because we were forced to". A southerner would answer the same question, "to preserve our rights". And anyone who thinks millions of white men in the 1860s, on either side, would fight a terrible 4 year war over slavery has a far to high opinion on human beings. The fact is most people on either side couldn't really have cared less about slavery. Those in the north, most of them, didn't think it a good enough reason to fight. And most in the south didn't own any.
The thing is the question of where Federal powers end, and the powers of the States begin, has been a contentious issue from day 1 to today. In 1861 War broke out over it, even today there is constant litigation and political maneuvering over who has power and when. The Federal Govt. or the individual States.
It was the position of The Confederacy that America was a Union ruled by consent and that the Southern states had a Constitutional right to secede from it. The north believed The Constitution formed a Union that was perpetual couldn't be divided and that talk of secession was rebellious.
And that! was the cause of The Civil War.
Not quite. See, a lot of people think they are being smart when they say that it wasn't slavery.
Every single smaller reason leading up to the split was founded in the greater issue of Slavery. The south didn't really care about states rights over federal rights if they guaranteed slavery.
-
um. are ya'll referring to the "war of northern agression?"
:cool:
-
lol, you're called 'small load' (there I said it...) :lol :lol
lol.
-
um. are ya'll referring to the "war of northern agression?"
:cool:
,Southern plantation drawl on>I do believe you are correct; my kind misguided southern friend who has gone north to live amongst the Yankee's. I only hope that your "mission" to help educate them in the ways of the southern man goes well.
-
Imagine a trailer-park meth-potato with 12 teeth trying to leave her equally deplorable boyfriend because he takes half the money she makes at the strip club and drinks it up.
Imagine the boyfriend, a tall gangling fellow with a beard, beats the ^@%@%^$!#@!#$ out of her and drags her back in the trailer. Oh, he incidentally kills a illegitimate child or three of theirs while doing this.
Also, he has his own brother thrown in jail when he protests these measures as a matter of principle.
Imagine the whole nation thinks this incident was just great or at least inevitable and waves flags about it.
Oh, btw, the gangling bearded boyfriend also suspended habeus corpus and freed not a single slave in the 3 border states that did not secede during his presidency....
Welp, I think I've about run this metaphor through the guard rail and off the cliff. Talk amongst yourselves now.
-
norther aggression started the war... union troops being strengthened at ft sumter after SC seceded. Just an over-powered central government doing what overpowered central governments do...
-
Not quite. See, a lot of people think they are being smart when they say that it wasn't slavery.
Every single smaller reason leading up to the split was founded in the greater issue of Slavery. The south didn't really care about states rights over federal rights if they guaranteed slavery.
So does this mean that your "smart" and nobody else is?
-
Any state in the can sprat them self from U.S.,there is no law that says they can't. Vermont was in talks to sprat them self from the U.S about a year ago.
sprat (sprt)
n.
1. A small marine food fish (Clupea sprattus) of northeast Atlantic waters that is eaten fresh or smoked and is often canned in oil as a sardine. Also called brisling.
2. Any of various other similar fishes, such as a young herring.
:confused:
-
norther aggression started the war... union troops being strengthened at ft sumter after SC seceded. Just an over-powered central government doing what overpowered central governments do...
Sounds to me like a little bit of history repeating...
-
So does this mean that your "smart" and nobody else is?
Not at all. I'm not saying you're stupid either (this time). It's just that a lot of people think that saying "Slavery" is an over simplification of the causes of the split.
-
20 yrs before the civil war started the slavery issue
was becoming critical... States were being admitted to
the union in pairs, 1slave/1free, so the balance of
power in congress could be maintained.. Both sides were fearful
that the other would gain supremacy, and then create an
ammendment to the constitution, which would make slavery/freedom
the defacto law of the land...
At some point, a free state was admitted to the union, without its
corresponding slave state, (cant remember which state, or the year)..
Combined with traditional American willingness to shoot first, and ask questions later...
The die was cast at that point...
The trigger was the required submission of states to federal law...
But the root catalyst, was definately slavery...
And yes, the problem was created at the very beginning...
When our people didn't stand up for the very principles under
which our nation was created...
RC
-
"Slavery"..... 650 THOUSAND poor farmers died so that rich plantation owners might be able to have slaves. :confused:
-
"Slavery"..... 650 THOUSAND poor farmers died so that rich plantation owners might be able to have slaves. :confused:
Yes.
-
Assuming that this isn't a trick question and the word "Civial" really is "Civil", I'll have to agree with Lincoln's statement and go with this chick:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Beecher-Stowe.jpg/480px-Beecher-Stowe.jpg)
BTW oakranger,
The way that you stated the question in this thread is very arrogant and assumes that only you know and understand the answer to a very controversial and debatable question. Many well educated and respected historians would not begin with such a stance unless addressing a group of children. They understand that the question is very complicated. While most AH BBS posters have plenty of retarded moments, most of us are well educated, read and intelligent, especially when it comes to history. It's not wise for anyone to assume that they are the absolute expert of any topic among this crowd.
To many of us, you will never come close to your presumed credibility if you cannot use proper spelling, grammar and sentence formation. It is fine to respond to posts with loose spelling and grammar. Starting a post while implying that you are the "smart" one, however, requires that your writing is clean. I'm used to reading over errors, but I had to read: Can you tell me what trigger the American Civial War started?
several times before I understood what you were asking.
I believe you wanted to ask: Can you tell me what triggered the American Civil War? (started dropped)
-
Just reading this thread, it's very clear to me that the legacy of the civil war and its issues are still with us today! We act like the war and slavery were millennia ago, when for a historian we are its grownup children. ;)
-
laser... I think that you are oversimplifying when you say that slavery was the cause.. pure and simple. Almost none of the people who fought in that war had slaves or even knew a slave.. Northerners had no problem treating men women and children of any race as slaves in their factories.
When the war was over the your-0-peeeans that came here were treated worse than any slave and died like rented mules.. they were in fact.. very much the same as rented mules. Slaves were treated better..
You could not have gotten any of the combatants on either side to kill each other over slavery.. soo.. even if the people who ran the war may have done so because they thought the issue was important.. the people who fought it.. who died in droves while killing friends and relatives in the most misserable conditions imaginable.. they did not do so over the issue of slavery.
Just as.. If we have another civil war here it will not be about one issue or even several.. we will not fight for gun control or lack of it or for privacy rights or whatever.. we will fight because we think that either we need to control and socialize or because we don't want to be controlled or socialized.
lazs
-
Most of the weapons where Springfield's, enfield, carbine, Spencer, sharps. The cal. on these are .54 or less.
Springfield, Enfield Muskets and some Enfield carbines are .577 cal or known as a .58 cal, some Enfield muskets where .69 cal and some smooth bore musket up to .75 cal. that where used in the civil war.
Most muskets only had a muzzle velocity of 960 feet per second and a bullet wieght of 500 grains or more
Spencer Carbine are .54 cal (Spencer made a musket too)
Sharps Carbine are .52 cal
Here are some other carbines from the civil war most where .50cal,
Jenks---Muzzle load
Symmes---Muzzle load
Gibbs---Muzzle load
Schroeder---Muzzle load
Greene--breech-load
Joslyn---Muzzle load
Cosmopolitan--breech-load
Starr --breech-load
Smith <~~~ paper or rubber shells, breech-load
Warner--breech-load
Maynard .50 cal or .36 cal <~~brass shells, breech-load
Palmer--breech-load
Gallager --breech-load
Wesson--breech-load
Burnside <~~ had a brass shells that look like an ice cream cone, breech-load
Perry Navy--breech-load
Merrill--breech-load
Latrobe--breech-load
Thomas---Muzzle load
-
laser... I think that you are oversimplifying when you say that slavery was the cause.. pure and simple. Almost none of the people who fought in that war had slaves or even knew a slave.. Northerners had no problem treating men women and children of any race as slaves in their factories.
When the war was over the your-0-peeeans that came here were treated worse than any slave and died like rented mules.. they were in fact.. very much the same as rented mules. Slaves were treated better..
You could not have gotten any of the combatants on either side to kill each other over slavery.. soo.. even if the people who ran the war may have done so because they thought the issue was important.. the people who fought it.. who died in droves while killing friends and relatives in the most misserable conditions imaginable.. they did not do so over the issue of slavery.
Just as.. If we have another civil war here it will not be about one issue or even several.. we will not fight for gun control or lack of it or for privacy rights or whatever.. we will fight because we think that either we need to control and socialize or because we don't want to be controlled or socialized.
lazs
Sure, at the time the split was shown to the southerners as a need for freedom. That the overbearing totalitarian north was telling them how to run their government. That states rights was way more important than federal rights.
This was all true.
But the southern leadership didn't really give a toejam about states rights. It was only a ploy to get 95% of the confederate fighters to fight in the war.
The main and BIGGEST reason that the southern politicians believed in states rights was that they believed the States should decide the issue of Slavery. Every other reason is a distant second place, and only really placed there to muddle the issue.
Had slavery been guaranteed, you wouldn't have seen a conflict between state and central rights.
-
laser... I think that you are oversimplifying when you say that slavery was the cause.. pure and simple. Almost none of the people who fought in that war had slaves or even knew a slave.. Northerners had no problem treating men women and children of any race as slaves in their factories.
When the war was over the your-0-peeeans that came here were treated worse than any slave and died like rented mules.. they were in fact.. very much the same as rented mules. Slaves were treated better..
lazs
Simplification often leads to understanding. A well written book on the topic would probably be simplified quite a bit, but it’s hard to comprehend that much information at once… A page on the topic would be even more simplified, but easier to comprehend. The same could be said by condensing the cause down to a paragraph, a sentence or even a word. I see value in compressing the cause down to any particular size. With such a question, the length of the answer almost needs to be stated in the question.
If I were a civil war history professor I’d be tempted to have my students explain the cause of the civil war in one page. The next week have them do it again in a paragraph. The week after the limit would be one sentence. Finally, define the cause of the war in a word.
In a word, I’d say the cause was slavery. Without slavery, it’s hard to imagine that the war ever would have started. Then again, you probably could say the same about racism…
Often the reasons why individuals go to war don’t match the reasons why nations (or states) go to war.
-
well gee wizz guys.. I guess if you want an oversimplification you could just say that the south resented the north and was about fed up with them trying to run their lives.
It is no less accurate to say that it was about states rights than to say it was about slavery.. You can't have a war.. especially a bloody civil war.. without the people fighting it believing that it is about something important to them.. I would say that not more than a handful who actually fought the war.. or had bullets come their way.. were fighting on either side of the slavery issue.
If you want students to say it was slavery then you are doing a disservice for the wrong reasons (expediancy). It takes no more time nor makes any less sense to say that the north was fighting to preserve the union and that the south was fighting for states rights than to glibly say it was about "slavery" which would have ended on it's own in any case.
It also does a disservice in it's oversimplification by not showing what a historic event it was for the constitution and how it changed the constitution by the illegal activities of the federal government that forever changed how we think of states rights. The real civil rights war was not fought for another 100 years .
lazs
-
well gee wizz guys.. I guess if you want an oversimplification you could just say that the south resented the north and was about fed up with them trying to run their lives.
It is no less accurate to say that it was about states rights than to say it was about slavery.. You can't have a war.. especially a bloody civil war.. without the people fighting it believing that it is about something important to them.. I would say that not more than a handful who actually fought the war.. or had bullets come their way.. were fighting on either side of the slavery issue.
If you want students to say it was slavery then you are doing a disservice for the wrong reasons (expediancy). It takes no more time nor makes any less sense to say that the north was fighting to preserve the union and that the south was fighting for states rights than to glibly say it was about "slavery" which would have ended on it's own in any case.
It also does a disservice in it's oversimplification by not showing what a historic event it was for the constitution and how it changed the constitution by the illegal activities of the federal government that forever changed how we think of states rights. The real civil rights war was not fought for another 100 years .
lazs
Good post.
-
"Skunk Beer"
-
So lazs,
Do you think that US soldiers fighting in Iraq are in it for the same reasons as our government?
-
So lazs,
Do you think that US soldiers fighting in Iraq are in it for the same reasons as our government?
:huh (needs more 'splaining')
-
It was all abouts State's Rights.... to own slaves.
-
Slavery is a common missconception
Short Answer: Economics
Long Answer
(A paper I wrote for my History class)
The civil war took the most American lives out of any war in our country’s history. This war was brought on by many things including slavery, industrialization, politics, and economic factors. The factors all combined to create sectional tensions great that it ripped American apart. The fact is that the civil war was caused by sectional tensions partially created by economic factors such as the effects of the War of 1812, the Panics of 1819, 1837, and 1857 as well as government policies such as protective tariffs, banking and Clay’s American System, in coordination with the growth of the west, the industrialization of the north, and the agricultural development of the south.
The war of 1812 was brought on by American trade policy towards European nations and attempting to protect its rights as a neutral nation. It started in the early 1800s with the impressments of American and attacks on American vessels by the British and French Navy which was a burden to American foreign trade. This lead to a set of embargo and tariffs which prevented and restricted the trade with any foreign nation. The embargo was an instant disaster, especially for southern farmers who depended on foreign markets for trade, but benefitted the industrial north which took the chance to shift their capitol to machine based manufacturing. Eventual this lead to the invasion of America and the War of 1812 which was a major hit to the American economy heavily. Though the war of 1812 sent American into depression for several years it also helped to spur American industry, having been cut off from British manufactures, the mechanical age started by the war brought heavy industry to the north. The events that lead to as well as the War of 1812 were the start of the sectional tensions between the North and South. In the end trade was restored to Europe and the flow of agricultural goods to the war stricken continent became a valuable market.
The panic of 1819 hit the American economy hard, putting economy in a depression for almost six years. This depression was created by the growing European reliance on American farmers during the Napoleonic wars. This sudden rise in the price agricultural goods created sudden boom in the buying and cultivating of new land, most of this land was bought with little or no money down and often no collateral. As the Napoleonic was came to a close and European agriculture began to recover it started to cause a fall in the price of cotton and other American agricultural goods as there was no longer a large European market, this was also in addition to the British textile industry switching to Indian producers for cheaper cotton. All this in turn lead to a collapse of the American agriculture and also meant that the farmers could not pay off the debt. This hit the Midwest and South particularly hard but most of all it greatly slowed the western movement and started to create sectional tension between the East and the West. Several factors that slowed the recovery of the American economy was the lack of a central currency, the individual banks had put out their own currency which became mostly useless and incredibly unstable after the panic began. This instability in the currency meant that no man who holds it in his possession could be safe for a day.The economic depression though it did cause much damage in the south also affected the north quite significantly and only was a cause of mild sectional tension between the north, south, east, and west. In the end The panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise revealed the clashing interests that divided the country and created sectional tensions.
It was about this time that Henry Clay developed The American System which pushed for protective tariffs, internal improvements, and a strong national bank in the end seemed to benefit the north greater. His main argument ran along the lines of constitutional equality which defined would not draw resources from one part of the Union, and expend them in the improvements of another part of the union. Given in the form of a key part of Clay’s American system, internal improvements, the amount of local money collected would be returned to that local area and since the amount received in the more industrialized north would be greater then there would be more internal improvement than in the south, which in the end became the case. Clay also promoted protective tariffs that would protect American industry; this did not favor the south because it benefited from cheap European goods and also incited tariffs from European countries which affected the market of southern goods. A key example of this is the Tariff of 1828 also referred to as the Tariff of abominations by southerners abominations because it incited similar tariffs in foreign markets and hurt the southern agriculture as well as increased the price of manufactured goods, basically the fate of the fertile states was be poverty and desolation. Most of the tariffs that the American system proposed would benefit the north and hurt the south and was an adding factor to the sectional tensions between the North, South, and West. The last key part of Clay’s system was a strong national bank which if it had been instituted in the early years of the Nineteenth Century could have prevented several of the panics and depressions that lead to the civil war, in fact American moved away from the idea of a National bank when president Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Bank of the United States and withdrew all of its fund in favor of smaller individual banks. In the end Clay’s American System never really was put into effect before the civil war, though we have since implemented many of its key points into our modern government since the war.
In 1832 president Jackson vetoed Bank of the United States recharter bill and condemned its monopoly on banking. The creation of pet banks and state issued currency caused an instability that had not been foreseen, in response to the rapidly growing inflation Jackson issued Specie Circular. However it had an opposite effect than intended increasing the rate of inflation greatly as well as slowing movement in the west. Panic of 1837 was brought on by the actions of Jackson was caused by a lack of Specie and a surplus of paper money, as well as over extensions on credit and speculation on land in the west. This caused a spiral into depression for six years. President Van Buren made very few efforts to counteract the actions of the depression instead he only protected the federal government’s holdings. The panic slowed growth in the west and caused a growth in sectional tension between the north, west, and south.
The final economic factor to contribute to the sectional tension in America was the Panic of 1857. The panic of 1857 had a short affect on the North and was averted by the incoming flow of California gold. This newfound reliance on western gold caused a shift away from the southern sources which in turn lead to more sectional tension between the north and south. The difference between the panic of 1857 and previous economic problems was that it only greatly affected the North instead of the south and was quickly settled and solved as well as being a minimal additive to the social tension already at hand, this being the Dred Scott case and the Bloody Kansas incident which were much greater contributors to the sectional tension that brought on the civil war.
This was the last major economic factor to contribute to the civil war. In Late 1860 and early 1861 state began to secede from the union and an attack on Fort Sumter began. The civil war had started, caused by social tension spawned by the economic differences created by tariffs, wars, and politics. Though they were not the only factor that lead to the separation of the Union it was one of the key parts, in the end it was a battle that was going to need to be resolved, be it on the battle field or on the floor of our government.
-
I'm just amazed that Curlew went to school :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Slavery is a common missconception
Short Answer: Economics
Short answer, Wrong. You should have been failed for that paper. But for the same reason why you think you are right is the same reason we've discussed here. People can't possibly accept that the answer is as simple as Slavery. It is not a simplified answer as to why everything happened.
It is that the answer as to why it happened is simple.
Every single major strife that occured in the US from post Confederacy to the Civil war was because of slavery.
-
curlews paper is accurate so far as I recall reading the facts.. it is not oversimplification to say slavery.. it is lazy and stupid.
How much room did curlews paper take? how long to read it? that could easily be taught.
It boils down to.. if the north had not acted as they did they could not have engendered the kind of resentment that would cause brother to fight brother.
To say that brother fought brother in order to keep or get rid of slavery is ludicrous in the extreme. Liincoln himself said that if he could preserve the union by allowing slavery then he would have done it.
lazs
-
eskimo.. what do you mean? I think that the reasons our soldiers are fighting in Iraq are pretty much in sync with the reasons our government sent em there.
Can you tell me what you feel are the governments reasons and how they differ from the soldiers?
Even in vietnam... the reasons of the soldiers and the government were in sync.. those that wanted to fight.
I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong in either case.. just that there is some general agreement on why they are there.
lazs
-
Short answer, Wrong. You should have been failed for that paper. But for the same reason why you think you are right is the same reason we've discussed here. People can't possibly accept that the answer is as simple as Slavery. It is not a simplified answer as to why everything happened.
It is that the answer as to why it happened is simple.
Every single major strife that occured in the US from post Confederacy to the Civil war was because of slavery.
You are wrong.
-
You are wrong.
Yeah but its the sheer arrogance that accompanies his ridiculous, pontificating, totally unsupported, one liner assertions that is impressive. And it is impressive. I'd bet you could scour the planet and not find one primate even close to LaserSailors talent.
And when the discussion goes Intellectual is when he's most impressive.
-
eskimo.. what do you mean? I think that the reasons our soldiers are fighting in Iraq are pretty much in sync with the reasons our government sent em there.
Can you tell me what you feel are the governments reasons and how they differ from the soldiers?
Even in vietnam... the reasons of the soldiers and the government were in sync.. those that wanted to fight.
I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong in either case.. just that there is some general agreement on why they are there.
lazs
I think in both the US Civil War and the war in Iraq, you will find soldiers fighting for many reasons: patriotism, valor, excitement, political interests, family military history, “it’s a job”, they were already enlisted, the list goes on… In the US Civil War, Vietnam, the world wars and other wars, men also were drafted. Certainly there are some soldiers who have the same beliefs as the government; but the number varies from war to war. In WWII, I would think that the vast majority of soldiers’ major motivation aligned with the government view. In the US Civil War, however, I think many soldiers didn’t really want anything to do with it; the New York Draft Riots illustrate this.
Regardless, wars often start with little consideration of what the common man, or soldier, feels is important. When we ask, “What was the cause of a particular war” we are usually asking why leaders chose to go to war.
I think it’s important to consider what motivated individual soldiers, but that’s really a different question.
The question certainly becomes more important when considering any civil war, however.
-
Yeah but its the sheer arrogance that accompanies his ridiculous, pontificating, totally unsupported, one liner assertions that is impressive. And it is impressive. I'd bet you could scour the planet and not find one primate even close to LaserSailors talent.
And when the discussion goes Intellectual is when he's most impressive.
Agreed.
-
Well, everyone has a theory of why the civil war was fought. The most popular, slavery. To the extent, slavery had some parts to do with the war. Other reasons is the south fought over the quesion of states rights. the north, it was to preserve the union. The north was rich and getting all the attention from congress while the south was poor, not getting much attention from washington. Even Mark Twain said it because the south had read too many novels by Sir Walter Scott. Curlew really brought out the specifics on the subject.
Hear is a little part you may not know. Kansas, basically was the spark that started the war. IN mid 1850, Kansas was to be the next established state . IT had the right to chose as a slave state or not. Missouri, a slave state, didn't want a free slave state to the west. So out came "Bleeding Kansas". Ranchers and farmers from Missouri terrorized eastern Kansas. They where called "Missourian Boarder Ruffians". They raided towns and cities (Topeka and Lawrence) to influence Kansas to be a slave state. There where several attempts of admittance for Kansas to be a slave state or not. By 1961, Kansas applied for admittance to the Union. However, the proslavery forces in the Senate strongly opposed its free state status, and stalled its admission. IN 1861, after the Confederate states seceded, did the constitution gain approval and Kansas become a state. Soon after, the war broke out.
And for more info on the American Civil War. This web site really covers about everything but they did left out Native American Indians invoment.
http://www.civilwar.com/ (http://www.civilwar.com/)
-
I eagerly await your next syllable.
(http://www.masternewmedia.org/images/school-student_id3688891_size300.jpg)
-
Anyway, let me get to the quesion. Can you tell me what trigger the American Civial War started? I know most of the people will say slavery. Lets see if you are as smart as you think you are.
Sounds like you've had a heluva "cariter". (wtf??)
I weep for the species.
BTW, the correct short answer is 'states rights'.
carry on.
-
"Small Load" isn't a name I'd go telling people I had.
Just saying...
-
Another great cause of the war was actually an export tariff that the north wanted to charge and the south refused to pay. Slavery was nothing more than an afterthought issue... But when you lose a war, the truth cannot be found in history books for very long. Fact is, we never had a president that shredded the constitution more than lincoln, perhaps not since (although a few others have sure tried) By the way, the civil war is why we dont charge an export tax today. Here are some of the reasons that cased the war just the basic FACTS:
1. First of all coercion in 1861, which was a violation of Article 4. And of course that's where Lincoln tried to coerce the South into fighting and of course into surrendering to him basically.
2. Lincoln violated the Constitution when he violated the Laws of Neutrality, which was the Trent Affair, Article 6, Clause 2, which was a violation of international law. Now if you don't know what the Trent Affair was, it is very interesting because the Confederate Government had sent some representatives to England to present our cause there before the English Parliament and our Confederate men were on an English ship named the Trent. And the United States government came and took the Confederate men off a British ship and imprisoned them. You say, well, what's so bad about that, because of the laws of Neutrality, and remember the War of 1812 was fought over the same issue because the English was doing that to our citizens. And what happened, the North was humiliated in this. Those men had to be released and William Seward had to write an apology to the English government because the English government would not even negotiate. They said you will either release those men or there is going to be war between you and England as well as the South and England. So, Lincoln when he violated the Constitution in this area, by the way, do you know what he did for the Captain who arrested those men and took them off of the English Ship? He gave him a gold medal. Didn't matter to him that he violated the Constitution.
3. He suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2.
4. He declared war without the consent of Congress in 1861, which is a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 and 12.
5. He made West Virginia a State in violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1. He just separated Virginia and made West Virginia a State all by himself.
6. He denied the freedom of speech in the Valandeham Imprisonment, which was a violation of the first Amendment.
7. He blockaded Ports of the States that were held by the Federal government to still be in the Union. You don't block your own Ports.
8. The Liberty of the Press was taken away - that is a violation of the First Amendment.
9. Violation of the Fugitive slave law, which was violation of Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3.
-
Well, everyone has a theory of why the civil war was fought. The most popular, slavery. To the extent, slavery had some parts to do with the war. Other reasons is the south fought over the quesion of states rights. the north, it was to preserve the union. The north was rich and getting all the attention from congress while the south was poor, not getting much attention from washington. Even Mark Twain said it because the south had read too many novels by Sir Walter Scott. Curlew really brought out the specifics on the subject.
Hear is a little part you may not know. Kansas, basically was the spark that started the war. IN mid 1850, Kansas was to be the next established state . IT had the right to chose as a slave state or not. Missouri, a slave state, didn't want a free slave state to the west. So out came "Bleeding Kansas". Ranchers and farmers from Missouri terrorized eastern Kansas. They where called "Missourian Boarder Ruffians". They raided towns and cities (Topeka and Lawrence) to influence Kansas to be a slave state. There where several attempts of admittance for Kansas to be a slave state or not. By 1961, Kansas applied for admittance to the Union. However, the proslavery forces in the Senate strongly opposed its free state status, and stalled its admission. IN 1861, after the Confederate states seceded, did the constitution gain approval and Kansas become a state. Soon after, the war broke out.
And for more info on the American Civil War. This web site really covers about everything but they did left out Native American Indians invoment.
http://www.civilwar.com/ (http://www.civilwar.com/)
Do you realize that I and many others learned about this very issue in or around the 7th grade? Economics had a bigger part than slavery.
-
Sounds like you've had a heluva "cariter". (wtf??)
I weep for the species.
BTW, the correct short answer is 'states rights'.
carry on.
Isn't it incredible Between "sprat" "cariter" and "civial" as well as the unique manner of expressing himself he sounds like a scholar, just like sailor.
-
Do you realize that I and many others learned about this very issue in or around the 7th grade? Economics had a bigger part than slavery.
history aint what it used to be....I remember looking at my kid's 9th grade history text....(0went right to WW2)---80% was the Japanese internment camps, atrocities on Jews, and of course, the Bomb
-
"Small Load" isn't a name I'd go telling people I had.
I can't believe i had to wait until the 4th page for someone else to find that funny
-
oakranger is funny as hell.
Mac
-
If slavery was the cause of the war OR the excuse for the war, then why did Abe wait till halfway through the war to free them?
-
One thing is for sure in my mind. Nothing gained from the Civil War was worth the stiffs, and some of the increases in centralized power were a step backwards from what the stiffs who fought in the Revolution achieved.
-
From the Great State of Texas....
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
Seems that Texas sure thought slavery was a pretty important issue.
-
"Small Load" isn't a name I'd go telling people I had.
Just saying...
Hummm, only arrogant people like you would find that funny. More than 100 reenactment freinds that don't find it funny and respect the name. Tell them how you feel about my name and see how long you will last.
-
Hummm, only arrogant people like you would find that funny. More than 100 reenactment freinds that don't find it funny and respect the name. Tell them how you feel about my name and see how long you will last.
tink. (was that the sound of gauntlet dropping)
hell. give me thier email addresses. i'll do it.
o'club v. re-enactors.
pick the field. let's rumble.
:cool:
-
tink. (was that the sound of gauntlet dropping)
hell. give me thier email addresses. i'll do it.
o'club v. re-enactors.
pick the field. let's rumble.
:cool:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
real rifles aginst computer jocks.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
real rifles aginst computer jocks.
ummmm....
do you mean "real rifles with blanks" or real rifles that will saw you in half?
you haven't been paying attention to the hobbies of people who frequent this place much have you?
:rolleyes:
p.s. - i think you meant "against" right?
;)
-
ummmm....
do you mean "real rifles with blanks" or real rifles that will saw you in half?
you haven't been paying attention to the hobbies of people who frequent this place much have you?
:rolleyes:
p.s. - i think you meant "against" right?
;)
No, but I do like pulling your chain. Heck, it really doesn't bother me what you think of the name. It is kind of funny with a name like that but i earn it. The one thing you may not know is that you earn the name from others, you don't make it up your self. Once you get it you are stuck with it. Kind of like how Native Americans Indians got there names. Oh and we do used live round when hunting and shoot competition.
-
No, but I do like pulling your chain. Heck, it really doesn't bother me what you think of the name. It is kind of funny with a name like that but i earn it. The one thing you may not know is that you earn the name from others, you don't make it up your self. Once you get it you are stuck with it. Kind of like how Native Americans Indians got there names. Oh and we do used live round when hunting and shoot competition.
So, you're saying that your girlfriend is a reenactor too and she named you?
-
I used to be a reenactor. I was with the 3rd Alabama Co. B. We represented the Mobile Cadets, of which 300 went into war in 1860 and 30 or so survived.
The painting in my avatar is one I did back in 83. The subject posed for a photo at Harrisonburg, LA in 82. He had Comanche Indian ancestory, but I painted him as a North Carolina Cherokee Scout (N.C. 69th) with the First National Flag as the background. The rifle he has is a musketoon, or short barreled .58 cal 2 banded Enfield. This rifle was mostly used by artillery troops, but a scout can carry anything he wants, usually light.
I enjoyed my experience with reenactors and learned a lot of useful things. One time we were in Vicksburg, MS for the Battle of Champion Hill. There were film crews there on the hillside. I decided to stay up there on the hill to watch the battle. It was well worth it. Most of the battlefield was covered in smoke, and every here and there a small pocket of clear would open up and there would be a line of soldiers visible wherever a clear pocket would open up.
That night and all the next day it rained. We drilled in the rain doing wheel turns with 100 men. Lightening was flashing and there was the commander on his white horse, sword raised high drilling the troops.
Our tent dug a fire pit during and after the drilling. We made a drain tunnel so the fire wouldn't go out. Ours was the only fire in the camp. The Mississippi national guard was called to evacuate 1000 people. A duesenhalf got stuck.
That was a memorable weekend. :salute
Les
-
For whiles I was shooting with a bunch of blackpowder guys, "I love shooting 1 shooters". They were into reenacting and asked me to join. I really wanted to but just didn't have the time. This was years ago.
I bet I would have loved it.
-
So, how does one *earn* a nickname like "Small Load"? I am honestly curious.
Does it involve a circle jerk and a ginger nut?
...and just a point on *my* arrogance. I suggest you look in the mirror young fellow. You've started a thread called "How did WWII started" which evidences your command of the English language is sorely lacking...yet somehow you know more about its origins than everyone here because you will give us the answer in 24 hours. Your next effort is about something called the Civial War, which only serves to confirm that the error in your subject line of the WWII thread was not just a innocent mistake and that while you may be paying some attention in history class you need to concentrate a bit more in English class.
-
And while we're on the topic, Curval has a hot wife whom he's knocked up on numerous occasions.
He may seem arrogant from someone with load issues, but that's just the way it is.
-
So, how does one *earn* a nickname like "Small Load"? I am honestly curious.
Does it involve a circle jerk and a ginger nut?
...and just a point on *my* arrogance. I suggest you look in the mirror young fellow. You've started a thread called "How did WWII started" which evidences your command of the English language is sorely lacking...yet somehow you know more about its origins than everyone here because you will give us the answer in 24 hours. Your next effort is about something called the Civial War, which only serves to confirm that the error in your subject line of the WWII thread was not just a innocent mistake and that while you may be paying some attention in history class you need to concentrate a bit more in English class.
:devil
-
If slavery was the cause of the war OR the excuse for the war, then why did Abe wait till halfway through the war to free them?
Perhaps you missed it where I clearly explained that Slavery was the cause of the split, Abraham Lincoln was the cause of the war.
-
It is kind of funny with a name like that but i earn it.
I am sure none of us doubt that. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I don’t think I’d ever imagined a situation where I’d rip on a guy for having male performance issues; I mean that’s just not cool. But I never imagined that I’d ever run across a guy who would brag that his nickname was “Small Load”. I bet Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. Ruth or even Richard Simmons couldn’t resist a jab at such a guy…
-
So, how does one *earn* a nickname like "Small Load"? I am honestly curious.
Does it involve a circle jerk and a ginger nut?
...and just a point on *my* arrogance. I suggest you look in the mirror young fellow. You've started a thread called "How did WWII started" which evidences your command of the English language is sorely lacking...yet somehow you know more about its origins than everyone here because you will give us the answer in 24 hours. Your next effort is about something called the Civial War, which only serves to confirm that the error in your subject line of the WWII thread was not just a innocent mistake and that while you may be paying some attention in history class you need to concentrate a bit more in English class.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing007.gif)
-
Perhaps you missed it where I clearly explained that Slavery was the cause of the split, Abraham Lincoln was the cause of the war.
....and yet you're still wrong.
-
eskimo.. I think that you will find that the soldiers in Iraq are pretty much in sync with what the reasons given by our government are.
I don't think that anyone shooting in the civil war was doing so.. at least when it started.. about freeing slaves.
"Abraham Lincoln's position on freeing the slaves was one of the central issues in American history. Though Abraham Lincoln was one of the people identified as most responsible for the abolition of slavery, he did not initially take the position that it was appropriate that federal laws be passed to abolish the practice in states where it already existed. Most Americans agreed that if slavery did not expand it would eventually become extinct, and Lincoln proposed ending that expansion.
Before the American Civil War and even on the war's early stages Lincoln said that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery in states where it already existed. His position and the position of the Republican Party in 1860 was that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories, and thus all future states admitted to the Union would be free states."
So, when the war started it had nothing to do with slavery. The war was not started about slavery but about economics and states rights.
Lincoln destroyed the constitution in order to preserve the union not to end slavery. He himself said that he would have every negro in chains if it would preserve the union.
You guys need a another hero. Charlton Heston marched with MLK in the 60's by the way.. he could be your hero?
lazs
-
Here is the letter that lincoln wrote to greely and that was published
"As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
-
Perhaps you missed it where I clearly explained that Slavery was the cause of the split, Abraham Lincoln was the cause of the war.
Then explain why he waited till halfway through the war to free the slaves if slavery was the cause.
-
well.. this is getting political and.. well... icky.. mean stuff is next.
lazs
-
Then explain why he waited till halfway through the war to free the slaves if slavery was the cause.
Slavery was the foundation for the split of the slave states from the free states.
No free state joined the Confederacy, no free state cited states rights and seceeded from the Union.
Lincoln was not president when the first slave states seceeded.
In 1860, Congressman Laurence M. Keitt of South Carolina said, "The anti-slavery party contends that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States."
In 1860 in New Haven Conn, Abraham Lincoln said, "the question of Slavery is the question, the all absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us -- and by that I mean, not the Republican party alone, but the whole American people, here and elsewhere -- all of us wish this question settled -- wish it out of the way. It stands in the way, and prevents the adjustment, and the giving of necessary attention to other questions of national house-keeping."
That is why South Carolina said in Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union "The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."
So those who seceeded said the cause of the trampling on states rights by the federal government was "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery"... not to slaveholding states, but to the insitituion of slavery itself.
Perhaps one could come to the conclusion that since Lincoln and the South Carolina legislature thought slavery was the issue, that just maybe perhaps slavery was the issue.
-
Then explain why he waited till halfway through the war to free the slaves if slavery was the cause.
I said it was the cause of the split, that is the secession of the southern states. Regardless of the cause of the split, Lincoln felt that they didn't have the right to leave, even though they did. Lincoln then attacked the south, or at least blatantly provoked the south, believing he had every right to force back in those who didn't want a union anymore.
You'll notice here that some of us do not hold Lincoln in the greatest regard. The fact that Lincoln ultimately, and barely, freed the slaves often causes most people to overlook everything else he did while being president. Stuff that would send any America loving person into fits.
-
I used to be a reenactor. I was with the 3rd Alabama Co. B. We represented the Mobile Cadets, of which 300 went into war in 1860 and 30 or so survived.
The painting in my avatar is one I did back in 83. The subject posed for a photo at Harrisonburg, LA in 82. He had Comanche Indian ancestory, but I painted him as a North Carolina Cherokee Scout (N.C. 69th) with the First National Flag as the background. The rifle he has is a musketoon, or short barreled .58 cal 2 banded Enfield. This rifle was mostly used by artillery troops, but a scout can carry anything he wants, usually light.
I enjoyed my experience with reenactors and learned a lot of useful things. One time we were in Vicksburg, MS for the Battle of Champion Hill. There were film crews there on the hillside. I decided to stay up there on the hill to watch the battle. It was well worth it. Most of the battlefield was covered in smoke, and every here and there a small pocket of clear would open up and there would be a line of soldiers visible wherever a clear pocket would open up.
That night and all the next day it rained. We drilled in the rain doing wheel turns with 100 men. Lightening was flashing and there was the commander on his white horse, sword raised high drilling the troops.
Our tent dug a fire pit during and after the drilling. We made a drain tunnel so the fire wouldn't go out. Ours was the only fire in the camp. The Mississippi national guard was called to evacuate 1000 people. A duesenhalf got stuck.
That was a memorable weekend. :salute
Les
I image you been in battles in Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee. Glad to see another AH player that has the same pasion as me. :salute
-
And while we're on the topic, Curval has a hot wife whom he's knocked up on numerous occasions.
He may seem arrogant from someone with load issues, but that's just the way it is.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Hey Curval, i may have bad grammar and spelling, bt at least i am not a arrogant A-HOLE who bullies people.
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/forum/locked.gif)
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Hey Curval, i may have bad grammar and spelling, bt at least i am not a arrogant A-HOLE who bullies people.
um, i wouldn't mess with curvie if i wuz you.
he's got connexions.
-
um, i wouldn't mess with curvie if i wuz you.
he's got connexions.
Not to mention a closet full of colorful and always fashionable shorts. :D
-
um, i wouldn't mess with curvie if i wuz you.
he's got connexions.
Everyone blames the triangle...
It's really Curval though...
-
Hummm, only arrogant people like you would find that funny. More than 100 reenactment freinds that don't find it funny and respect the name. Tell them how you feel about my name and see how long you will last.
(http://www.prometheus6.org/images/toughguy1.jpg)
:rofl :rofl
-
I hope they really don't have a magazine like that. Them tree hippies will cry even more.
-
Short answer, Wrong. You should have been failed for that paper. But for the same reason why you think you are right is the same reason we've discussed here. People can't possibly accept that the answer is as simple as Slavery. It is not a simplified answer as to why everything happened.
It is that the answer as to why it happened is simple.
Every single major strife that occured in the US from post Confederacy to the Civil war was because of slavery.
First off I want t say sorry for taking to long to respond, i have been out of town.
But I do want to say that your an idiot, You take the common misconception that the war was caused entirely by slavery. Yes the was fear that the big L was going to abolish slavery IF he got elected during his election was a factor, but even this shows that there was massive tension between the n and s, in fact this wasnt the first time the s threatened to leave the union, infact several states had threatened after th panic of 1828 and the tarrif of abominations. so until you can show me a long (atleast 60 years) history of sectional tension caused by slavery im goin to stick with my answer.
-
First off I want t say sorry for taking to long to respond, i have been out of town.
But I do want to say that your an idiot, You take the common misconception that the war was caused entirely by slavery. Yes the was fear that the big L was going to abolish slavery IF he got elected during his election was a factor, but even this shows that there was massive tension between the n and s, in fact this wasnt the first time the s threatened to leave the union, infact several states had threatened after th panic of 1828 and the tarrif of abominations. so until you can show me a long (atleast 60 years) history of sectional tension caused by slavery im goin to stick with my answer.
Yea, you are right about the panic of 1828 and tarrif of abominations. Infact, slavery was not the main reason but rather part of the reason why the north and south fought. However, most of general public only knows why the civil war occur, slavery.
-
.
-
Yea, you are right about the panic of 1828 and tarrif of abominations. Infact, slavery was not the main reason but rather part of the reason why the north and south fought. However, most of general public only knows why the civil war occur, slavery.
Thats what the liberals want everyone to think.
-
it was all about economics - slavery loss was an economically bad deal for the south
All wars are about tangible assets.
-
Infact, slavery was not the main reason but rather part of the reason why the north and south fought. However, most of general public only knows why the civil war occur, slavery.
That's because the victors write history. Hell, I just want to know when people are going to stop calling it the "Civil War".
A civil war is fighting between factions within a single country. What most people fail to recognize, is that this war was fought between two completely separate nations. A more correct name would be "War between the States"
-
That's because the victors write history. Hell, I just want to know when people are going to stop calling it the "Civil War".
A civil war is fighting between factions within a single country. What most people fail to recognize, is that this war was fought between two completely separate nations. A more correct name would be "War between the States"
I think actually it would be a war fought within a country torn in two. As Americans today we cant recognize that the South actually did in fact create a separate country or it would be 'the war to recover the confederacy' or something similar. 'War between the States' is accurate because the war was really about States rights.
-
First off I want t say sorry for taking to long to respond, i have been out of town.
But I do want to say that your an idiot, You take the common misconception that the war was caused entirely by slavery. Yes the was fear that the big L was going to abolish slavery IF he got elected during his election was a factor, but even this shows that there was massive tension between the n and s, in fact this wasnt the first time the s threatened to leave the union, infact several states had threatened after th panic of 1828 and the tarrif of abominations. so until you can show me a long (atleast 60 years) history of sectional tension caused by slavery im goin to stick with my answer.
I will not repeat it again.
Slavery caused the secession of the states.
Abraham Lincoln caused the war.
-
"small load?"
:rofl
-
I will not repeat it again.
Slavery caused the secession of the states.
Abraham Lincoln caused the war.
The great Intellectual speaks. :rofl Didn't you guys know that the subject is closed after Laser-Einstein speaks.
Dont expect another repeat. He wont do it.
-
That's because the victors write history. Hell, I just want to know when people are going to stop calling it the "Civil War".
A civil war is fighting between factions within a single country. What most people fail to recognize, is that this war was fought between two completely separate nations. A more correct name would be "War between the States"
Thats only if you belive in the federalist view that states have rights higher than the national goverment, thus saying that the states have the right to seceede, but franky Im not a federalist, I think the national goverment is highest, so that would only make the south a bunch of roudy people, the states never left the union, they were only prevented from leaving the nation in a bloody struggle.
Federalism sucks, Articles of Confederation Prove it
and laser, still waiting on the facts
-
Infact, slavery was not the main reason but rather part of the reason why the north and south fought
That's because the victors write history. Hell, I just want to know when people are going to stop calling it the "Civil War".
And yet South Carolina wrote this:
We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
The very first reason SC addressed was about a "person held to service or labor in one State"
Which is of course, slavery.
Then a little farther down in the document,
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
Read "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm)
And then tell me it was not about slavery.
The constitutional argument was about slavery, the political argument (Missouri compromise) was about slavery.
In the document, slave was mentioned 18 times. Reference to slavery with the word servile or service was another 6 times.
Now the word 'right' is mentioned 20 times by my count, but 6 of those times the right in question was slavery.
Written in the words of the defeated, slavery was the all encompassing reason for secession.
SC seceeded in 1860, prior to Lincolns presidency.
Lincoln ordered the defence of a federal fort and only replenished the supplies of the fort. South Carolina fired the first shot, and started armed insurrection, which the federal government is constitutionally obligated to supress.
Slavery was the reason for secession, secession caused the armed insurrection against a federal fort, so slavery was the cause of the war.
-
(No politics, gotta remember that one) :D
I think the war had to do with a chick, yeah, some chick told some southern guy that a yankee hit on her, and one thing leads to another, next thing you know, Civil War breaks out.
Maybe the war was about oil, peanut oil. Good for cooking I guess.
Or, maybe it was a result of that old "less filling, tastes great" argument?
-
Why hasn't one of the board moonbat liberals tried to pin the Civil War on Bush yet?
I think the war had to do with a chick, yeah, some chick told some southern guy that a yankee hit on her, and one thing leads to another, next thing you know, Civil War breaks out.
Maybe the war was about oil, peanut oil. Good for cooking fried chicken I guess.
Or, maybe it was a result of that old "less filling, tastes great" argument?
LOL IN, thanks to the moonie, this one is finally dead.