NationStates Jolt Archive

Was it really a debate about states' rights? Or did the south just try pulling the same crap that Bush is pulling now about "liberating" Iraqis? You should probably learn more about pre-War southern states before you answer.

No one cares to discuss American history?

Nope not me. you had a civil war now? Only joking.

Silly, it was a combination of things.

It was an argument over states' rights, which quickly became an argument -- settled later -- over whether or not secession would be allowed. Then you have the economic aspect to consider (North had most of the industry, south had mostly agriculture), as well as the human rights issue, which really was one of the lesser considerations in the immediacy of the war.

Or did the south just try pulling the same crap that Bush is pulling now about "liberating" Iraqis?

Hell of a Freudian slip there, mein freund.

Maybe that's because people are scared you'll bite their heads off if they don't know enough about antebellum Georgia.

I am personally the slightest bit confused as to who you believe the South said they were liberating-- would you care to elaborate?

The Civil War was caused by divided loyalties causing people to get pissed at each other. It was caused by competing visions of how America should turn out. The South fought because they thought the North was pushing them around, what with tariffs and regulations on slavery, issues they thought the states could handle. The North had a leader who was hell-bent on keeping the Union together for his own reasons...exports, military manpower, etc. The South was sick of being regulated, and the North wanted to keep the Union together. Therefore, there was a war.

The Civil war was about slavery. Period. Not about whether slavery would or would not be outlawed (Northerners were very racist at the time too), but about what would happen with slavery in the west. Northerners felt that the west could be the land of oppurtunity for poor white people to go out, get some land, and move up economically/socially. Rich, white southern slave holders wanted this land because with a planter class man died, if his land was split between all of his sons, they would all be less well off than they were before. The south wanted the west to be open to slavery so they could expand their profits. The north viewed slavery in the west as a threat to the opportunity that could be provided to poor white men.

Also, pre-Civil war southerners were very pro-National strength. The southerners got the fugitive slave law passed so that all states would have to capture and assist in returning slaves to their proper southern owners. Incidentially, the Wisconsin supreme court said that the Fugitive Slave act was against Wisconsin state laws and therefore claimed to nulligy the fugitive slave act. Essentially every southern newspaper at the time said that they couldn't do this.

It wasn't until after the civil war that the former VP of the CSA started writing the argument saying it was about states' rights, not slavery. I made the comparison to Bush because pre-Iraqi war he had reasons to start the war like WMDs and such, but when it turned out Iraq didn't have any, he switched over to justifying the war because he was liberating Iraqis. This was never a reason before the war just like trying to uphold states' rights was never a reason for starting the Civil War. I'm not saying whether either of this reasons are good or bad, I'm just explaining the comparison.

We need the big list of things that the Civil War started on:

So far, there's the obvious:
1. slavery
2. states rights
3. geographical differences
4. export differences
5. economic differences
6. social differences

All of those on that list are good if you can admit that it wasn't about states' rights until after it was all said and done.

Rummy started it all. Rumsfeld initiated the vilence.


Other than that, it was just the Southern states were pissed off and they knew it would be pretty soon before more northern and western states were formed, giving those new states 2 senators, both of whom would automatically support abolition. This would tip the balance in the Senate, and then it would be possible to pass a law to abolish slavery. Then the Southern economy and lifestyle would be ruined. THe south did not want to be caught off guard and unprepared if the law was paassed, because they prolly would have revolted and seceded anyway, so they did it before hte law was passed. And they got damn close to winning too, and preserving slavery and the southern way of life. IT happened in the end, they lost, and the economy was ruined, and the way of life was gone, but it woulda happened anyway.

I in no way support slavery or any type of unfair discrimination, but I am Southern, and have a strong sense of nostalgia and Southern pride, and I will side with the Confederacy often in debates. Not that i wish they woulda won, but that they were somewhat justified.

1. slavery
2. states rights
3. geographical differences
4. export differences
5. economic differences
6. social differences
7. More anti-slavery states than pro-slavery
8. Laws being passed to ban slavery

1. slavery
2. states rights
3. geographical differences
4. export differences
5. economic differences
6. social differences
7. More anti-slavery states than pro-slavery
8. Laws being passed to ban slavery
7 and 8 fall under 1. 4 falls under 5. 2 deserves an asterik.

7 and 8 fall under 1. 4 falls under 5. 2 deserves an asterik.
well, 4 probably could merge with 5...but I put 1 as it's own because Northern citizens were mostly anti-slavery, and vice versa for the Southerners.

The Civil war was about slavery. Period. Not about whether slavery would or would not be outlawed (Northerners were very racist at the time too), but about what would happen with slavery in the west.
So none of the economic concerns (tariffs, protectionist policies to help the north, etc.) mattered?

History disagrees with you.

Northern citizens were mostly anti-slavery, and vice versa for the Southerners.
Eh...the Northerners were just against the expansion of slavery...they weren't against slavery, not most of them anyway.

1. slavery
2. states rights
3. geographical differences
4. export differences
5. economic differences
6. social differences
7. More anti-slavery states than pro-slavery
8. Laws being passed to ban slavery

I'd add one more: The Jeffersonian view of democracy and revolution (and I don't mean Jefferson Davis, although his view was closely aligned).

The civil war wasn't about slavery until Lincoln made it an issue to give his soldiers(who were quickly losing the will to fight anymore) the motivation to fight for something else, to free the slaves.

The civil war wasn't about slavery until Lincoln made it an issue to give his soldiers(who were quickly losing the will to fight anymore) the motivation to fight for something else, to free the slaves.
Wrong.

Heres South Carolina Reasons



[Copied by Justin Sanders from J.A. May & J.R. Faunt, South Carolina Secedes (U. of S. Car. Pr, 1960), pp. 76-81.]
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. 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."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

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. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. 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.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

Someone want to find the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and bold the parts about slavery?

Someone want to find the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and bold the parts about slavery?
Just because it mentions slavery doesn't mean it was entirely about slavery. Talk about a whacked-fallacy of exclusion!

Slavery wasn't the #1 issue to the south, pure and simple. It was an issue, yes, they needed them to work the plantations, but it wasn't the top of the line.

Just because it mentions slavery doesn't mean it was entirely about slavery. Talk about a whacked-fallacy of exclusion!
Read the CSA constitution then. I read parts of it earlier today. I wanted it to be posted here so that people understood the standpoint the CSA really was taking in 1861.

Constitution of the Confederate States

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity--invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God--do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

ARTICLE I.

Section I.

All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section II.

1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.
2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States, and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves. ,The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every fifty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six.
4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.
5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

Section III.

1. The Senate of the Confederate States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen for six years by the Legislature thereof, at the regular session next immediately preceding the commencement of the term of service; and each Senator shall have one vote.
2. Immediately after they shall be assembled, in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year; of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year; and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year; so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or other wise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States; and who shall not, then elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.
4. The Vice President of the Confederate States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.
5. The Senate shall choose their other officers; and also a president pro tempore in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the Confederate states.
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Confederate States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Confederate States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.

Section IV.

1. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, subject to the provisions of this Constitution; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the times and places of choosing Senators.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year; and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall, by law, appoint a different day.

Section V.

1. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.
2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number, expel a member.
3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section VI.

1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the Confederate States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 'o Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the Confederate States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the Confederate States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. But Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department.

Section VII.

1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.
2. Every bill which shall have passed both Houses, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the Confederate States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respective}y. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not be a E law. The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
3. Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of both Houses may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the Confederate States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him; or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of both Houses, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in case of a bill.

Section VIII.

1. The Congress shall have power- To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
2. To borrow money on the credit of the Confederate States.
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
4. To establish uniform laws of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the Confederate States; but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the Confederate States.
7. To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the Ist day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.
12. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.
13. To provide and maintain a navy.
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the Confederate States; reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
17. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the . erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Confederate States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section IX.

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
3. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
5. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.
6. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
7. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.
8. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
9. Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.
10. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.
11. No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederate States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
13. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
14. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
15. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
16. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
17. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
18. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact so tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Confederacy, than according to the rules of common law.
19. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
20. Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Section X.

1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.
2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.
3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

ARTICLE II.

Section I.

1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible. The President and Vice President shall be elected as follows:
2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the Confederate States shall be appointed an elector.
3. The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the Government of. the Confederate States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall,in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President the votes shall be taken by States~the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the 4th day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in case of the death, or other constitutional disability of the President.
4. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.
5. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the Confederate States.
6. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the Confederate States.
7. No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate; States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election.
8. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President; and the Congress may, by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.
9. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the Confederate States, or any of them.
10. Before he enters on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the Confederate States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution thereof."

Section II.

1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the Confederate States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the Confederate States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the Confederate States, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties; provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the Confederate States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
3. The principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, and all persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the Executive Departments may be removed at any time by the President, or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapacity. inefficiency, misconduct, or neglect of duty; and when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together with the reasons therefor.
4. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session; but no person rejected by the Senate shall be reappointed to the same office during their ensuing recess.

Section III.

1. The President shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Confederacy, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them; and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the Confederate States.

Section IV.

1. The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the Confederate States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE III.

Section I.

1. The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section II.

1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of the Confederate States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Confederate States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State, where the State is plaintiff; between citizens claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects; but no State shall be sued by a citizen or subject of any foreign state.
2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section III.

1. Treason against the Confederate States shall consist only in levying war against.them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

ARTICLE IV.

Section I.

1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section II.

1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried 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 slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section III.

1. Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.
2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.
3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
4. The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.

ARTICLE V.

Section I.

1. Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention~voting by States~and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof~as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention~they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

ARTICLE VI.

Section I.
The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
Section II.
All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the Confederate States under this Constitution, as under the Provisional Government.
Section III.
This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Section IV.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the Confederate States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Confederate States.
Section V.
The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people of the several States.
Section VI.
The powers not delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people thereof.

ARTICLE VII.

1. The ratification of the conventions of five States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.
2. When five States shall have ratified this Constitution, in the manner before specified, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall prescribe the time for holding the election of President and Vice President; and for the meeting of the Electoral College; and for counting the votes, and inaugurating the President. They shall, also, prescribe the time for holding the first election of members of Congress under this Constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until the assembling of such Congress, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall continue to exercise the legislative powers granted them; not extending beyond the time limited by the Constitution of the Provisional Government.

Adopted unanimously by the Congress of the Confederate States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, sitting in convention at the capitol, in the city of Montgomery, Ala., on the eleventh day of March, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-one.

Clause 3 of Section 3. That's essentially the primary cause for the war. The debate over the expansion of slavery into the western states. If the amount of slave territory didn't expand, the elite planter class would eventually become less and less elite (as the property of a father would be divided among all of his sons so they are each less wealthy then their father, and this trend continues unless they get more territory).

DISCLAIMER: I reserve the right to use any reply to the above post at http://life.short.be/ to make a fool out of you.

Nice.

If it means anything at all, the consitution wasn't until March 11, 1861, the south seceded in January.....

If it means anything at all, the consitution wasn't until March 11, 1861, the south seceded in January.....
And the war started in April of 1861.

The Civil War was caused by the defenders the north, not the agressors the south: at least that is what you are implying.
The South attacked first in Fort Sumpter, taking a northen fort by force.

So South attacked first, so North had the right to finish the fight.

You can argue up to the war maybe the south had the legal side and was winning opinion but still who attacked first and so the other became a threat? The south attacked first so the north was justufied in attacking back.

You have to feel sorry for those soldiers, they forced their country to lose both God's protection(being a aggressor) and their independence.

And many southerns had a belief in God so that protection was highly important to them.
But eh, the North won.

Lessons for the South, secede but don't attack first. Hehe

Clause 3 of Section 3. That's essentially the primary cause for the war. The debate over the expansion of slavery into the western states. If the amount of slave territory didn't expand, the elite planter class would eventually become less and less elite (as the property of a father would be divided among all of his sons so they are each less wealthy then their father, and this trend continues unless they get more territory).

Except for that according to your own words, then the war would have started over the need for land, and would be more closely tied to economics. They needed more land so that they could grow more crops. No duh. How is this now the fault of slavery?

You can argue up to the war maybe the south had the legal side and was winning opinion but still who attacked first and so the other became a threat? The south attacked first so the north was justufied in attacking back.


Funny thing is, we used the same tactic for Pearl Harbor.

Except for that according to your own words, then the war would have started over the need for land, and would be more closely tied to economics. They needed more land so that they could grow more crops. No duh. How is this now the fault of slavery?
It is the debate over the expansion of slavery into the Western territories...read my other posts for a more in depth explanation on the two sides' opinions of what should happen in the west and why.

I am from South Carolina. I think I know why we seceded. If Arkansas wants to say we did it over slavery, then Arkansas would only be partly right. We left because we were having more trouble with unfair tariffs. The North liked raising tariffs, because it only hurt the South. The "Tariff of Abominations" was passed in 1828, and from then on tensions began to rise. Yes, there were debates over whether or not slavery should be extended into more of the territories. However, it was only because Northern laborers wanted the jobs that would otherwise been taken by slaves. Do you see the picture? It was economics. Economics embraces the whole idea of why the Civil war started. The CSA constitution merely protects slavery where it exists and permits it to expand into the territories. Why? Because it was cheaper for them to keep slaves. Economics. I really am tired of people who don't even know why the war began.

I am from South Carolina. I think I know why we seceded. If Arkansas wants to say we did it over slavery, then Arkansas would only be partly right. We left because we were having more trouble with unfair tariffs. The North liked raising tariffs, because it only hurt the South. The "Tariff of Abominations" was passed in 1828, and from then on tensions began to rise. Yes, there were debates over whether or not slavery should be extended into more of the territories. However, it was only because Northern laborers wanted the jobs that would otherwise been taken by slaves. Do you see the picture? It was economics. Economics embraces the whole idea of why the Civil war started. The CSA constitution merely protects slavery where it exists and permits it to expand into the territories. Why? Because it was cheaper for them to keep slaves. Economics. I really am tired of people who don't even know why the war began.
Hmm, I can buy the expansion of the reason to "economy" because it's a little more inclusive, so long as we're not saying it was about states' rights. By the way, don't imply that I don't know why the war began. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't automatically debunk my opinion.

I am from South Carolina. I think I know why we seceded. If Arkansas wants to say we did it over slavery, then Arkansas would only be partly right. We left because we were having more trouble with unfair tariffs. The North liked raising tariffs, because it only hurt the South. The "Tariff of Abominations" was passed in 1828, and from then on tensions began to rise. Yes, there were debates over whether or not slavery should be extended into more of the territories. However, it was only because Northern laborers wanted the jobs that would otherwise been taken by slaves. Do you see the picture? It was economics. Economics embraces the whole idea of why the Civil war started. The CSA constitution merely protects slavery where it exists and permits it to expand into the territories. Why? Because it was cheaper for them to keep slaves. Economics. I really am tired of people who don't even know why the war began.

Forget it HadesRulesMuch! Opal won't buy the arguement your saying though you are right in this regard. I've studied the Civil War and have a 8 Video Tape set of the Civil War. I believe what you are saying is accurate and it needs to be said. The Confederate Constitution does protect Slavery but that is all it does. I was down in Alabama and visited the 1st Confederate White House. Got a nice little history lesson from there as well as at Montgomery Airport from someone from the south. The War was not about slavery. It turned into that when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued that freed the slaves but not in the border states. But even then it really wasn't all about slavery.

Hmm, I can buy the expansion of the reason to "economy" because it's a little more inclusive, so long as we're not saying it was about states' rights. By the way, don't imply that I don't know why the war began. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't automatically debunk my opinion.

And now you just told someone from S.C. that it is his opinion when HE LIVES IN THE STATE!!! Don't you think he'll know more on this than you do?

It wasn't about the legality/illegality of slavery in the south. I'm not saying that it was. What I was saying is that it was about the debate of the expansion of slavery into the west.

And now you just told someone from S.C. that it is his opinion when HE LIVES IN THE STATE!!! Don't you think he'll know more on this than you do?
Uh where you live doesnt matter. HadesRulesMuch is knowledgeable not because he's from SC but because he looked into this and studied it. Idiot.

And now you just told someone from S.C. that it is his opinion when HE LIVES IN THE STATE!!! Don't you think he'll know more on this than you do?
1) He started your post with "I think," which implies it is indeed an opinion.
2) None of us were around during the Civil War (not that I was) so it's not like you have some sort of massive knowledge advantage over me.

It wasn't about the legality/illegality of slavery in the south. I'm not saying that it was. What I was saying is that it was about the debate of the expansion of slavery into the west.

That wasn't the cause of the Civil War. Read up on ALL FACTORS of the Civil War! Many reasons were posted here but you ignored them and said that Slavery was the key reason for it!

No it was not! The Union wasn't going to attack the Confederate States. Yes Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together. ANY president would want that however, Fort Sumpter was FIRED UPON FIRST! The Union defended itself. I don't know why it was really called a war, though it really was, because it was not a DECLARED war! Lincoln never declared war on the South.

Uh where you live doesnt matter. HadesRulesMuch is knowledgeable not because he's from SC but because he looked into this and studied it. Idiot.

I've studied it too. He's right Antebellum South. South Carolina was the First state to secede from the Union. The other states followed. The first Confederate white house was in Montgomery Alabama then moved to Richmond, Virginia when that state Sceded from the Union. Richmond fell to the Union in 1865 and Lee surrendered shortly there after! BTW, did you know that Montgomery is still under reconstruction and mandatory bussing?

That wasn't the cause of the Civil War. Read up on ALL FACTORS of the Civil War! Many reasons were posted here but you ignored them and said that Slavery was the key reason for it!

No it was not! The Union wasn't going to attack the Confederate States. Yes Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together. ANY president would want that however, Fort Sumpter was FIRED UPON FIRST! The Union defended itself. I don't know why it was really called a war, though it really was, because it was not a DECLARED war! Lincoln never declared war on the South.
uh...

1) The issue of slavery in the West is a key reason (based on it's socio-economic consequences).
2) Who fired first really has not much to do with it. You can say the South started the war because they fired first, but this thread isn't about the undebated who/what/when/where. This thread is about the why.


And as long as we leave states' rights completely out of the reasoning, I'm fine with pretty much any response because like I said, none of us were around then so it's hard for any of to say definitely what was the primary reason, although if you look at the facts, I think it's pretty obvious that the states' rights argument doesn't hold much water.

I've studied it too. He's right Antebellum South. South Carolina was the First state to secede from the Union. The other states followed. The first Confederate white house was in Montgomery Alabama then moved to Richmond, Virginia when that state Sceded from the Union. Richmond fell to the Union in 1865 and Lee surrendered shortly there after! BTW, did you know that Montgomery is still under reconstruction and mandatory bussing?
Those are all whats/whos/whens/wheres and no whys.

1) He started your post with "I think," which implies it is indeed an opinion.
2) None of us were around during the Civil War (not that I was) so it's not like you have some sort of massive knowledge advantage over me.

No your right however, I have studied the Civil War in detail and I can say that it was not totally about slavery. Slavery was a small part of this war. It was not the main focus of the whole war.

Also, there is more than one definition to the phrase "I think"! It does not necessarily mean it is his opinion. He means that he knows why because he lives in the state. And yes, living in a state gives you a better understanding of said state's past.

No your right however, I have studied the Civil War in detail and I can say that it was not totally about slavery. Slavery was a small part of this war. It was not the main focus of the whole war.
Because you think I'm talking about the issue of slavery in the states that were already admitted to the union, I'll agree with you. And there was no single main focus for the war. Anyway, if I say socio-economics (and include slavery in the western territories as a major part of that), will you believe me?

Because you think I'm talking about the issue of slavery in the states that were already admitted to the union, I'll agree with you. And there was no single main focus for the war. Anyway, if I say socio-economics (and include slavery in the western territories as a major part of that), will you believe me?

In that case Opal, your more or less correct! Economics was a big part of why the South Seceded from the Union.

The contraction of "you are" is "you're," not "your."

Additionally, you argued with me adamantly until I changed the wording of my argument without changing the meaning...

I've studied it too. He's right Antebellum South. South Carolina was the First state to secede from the Union. The other states followed. The first Confederate white house was in Montgomery Alabama then moved to Richmond, Virginia when that state Sceded from the Union. Richmond fell to the Union in 1865 and Lee surrendered shortly there after! BTW, did you know that Montgomery is still under reconstruction and mandatory bussing?
Uh wtf are you telling this to me for? I agree with all his points... I was just saying you are a retard for thinking that living somewhere automatically makes you an expert about the area's history or that your opinion is automatically right.

No your right however, I have studied the Civil War in detail and I can say that it was not totally about slavery. Slavery was a small part of this war. It was not the main focus of the whole war.

Also, there is more than one definition to the phrase "I think"! It does not necessarily mean it is his opinion. He means that he knows why because he lives in the state. And yes, living in a state gives you a better understanding of said state's past.
Err no anyone can learn anything about anywhere even if they don't live there. Especially if its long-dead history... everyone has an even chance at attaining the knowledge since no one really experienced the history first hand.

The Civil war was about slavery. Period.History is written by the side that killed the others.

In that case Opal, your more or less correct! Economics was a big part of why the South Seceded from the Union.

Economics causes absolutely everything that happens in history. Thats something Karl Marx got right. But it's a cop-out to merely say "economics" and leave it at that... real historians have to look for more tangible manifestations of economics. As have been mentioned these manifestations include Northern trade policy and slavery (which I personally think plays the biggest part).

The contraction of "you are" is "you're," not "your."

Additionally, you argued with me adamantly until I changed the wording of my argument without changing the meaning...

lol! Here's why! You dropped slavery as a key factor. Slavery was not a key factor into why the South Split! Don't mention the Confed Constitution because all that does is protect slavery but it was NOT the main reason of seccession as you made it out to be. By changing the wording, you did change the meaning.

Because you think I'm talking about the issue of slavery in the states that were already admitted to the union, I'll agree with you.

Here you agreed with me because you recognized that I was indeed saying that you were talking about slavery

And there was no single main focus for the war.Anyway, if I say socio-economics (and include slavery in the western territories as a major part of that), will you believe me?

The part bolded is my doing!

Here you just said Socio-economic including slavery into western Territories! you did change the meaning because now you incorporated all economic hardships do to tariffs and other laws. Besides, you also ignored the Congress compromise regarding slavery in new lands that were acquired.

It was a combination of reasons. One was that the South was, in a way, a separate nation. They opposed tariffs because most Southernes bought imported goods. It was minor, but I believe it was an opening shot in a dispute over fifty years, and it ended well after the Civil War.
Slavery, I think though, did have a bigger part than some historians are willing to admit. While abolitionism was growing in the North, in the South, it was the only way to sustain their economy. Otherwise, their cotton industry would collapse, which was the bread and butter of the Southern economy. It was touchy enough to allow slavery in the South, but even moreso on its spread. When the abolitionists got to strong in Congress, the Southern states lost it, and the rest is history.

Err no anyone can learn anything about anywhere even if they don't live there. Especially if its long-dead history... everyone has an even chance at attaining the knowledge since no one really experienced the history first hand.

Here's this! I lived in the State of Missouri! Missouri was a border state during this time period. Though I didn't learn much about that state's history because I moved from there, I do know that slavery was not a major factor in the south leaving the union!

Uh wtf are you telling this to me for? I agree with all his points... I was just saying you are a retard for thinking that living somewhere automatically makes you an expert about the area's history or that your opinion is automatically right.

Name calling gets you nowhere except a name called back, moron! I never stated that it automatically made him an expert but that he'll have a better understanding of why his state seceded from the union you shmuck!

Besides, you also ignored the Congress compromise regarding slavery in new lands that were acquired.
The Missouri Sister-State compromise? That stopped working when the slave territories couldn't keep up with the free territories...

And I didn't change the meaning. The issue of slavery in the west was a HUGE part of the reasons behind the civil war. All I did was include the other tarriffs and such. They, in my opinion, are subordinate to the issue of slavery in the west however...

Of course, like I already said, this is stuff that none of us experienced and no one is going to prove either side right or wrong.

Read the CSA constitution then. I read parts of it earlier today. I wanted it to be posted here so that people understood the standpoint the CSA really was taking in 1861.
Again, just because it mentions slavery doesn't mean it was solely about slavery. There were multiple causes. No one is denying that slavery was a factor, mind you.

Here's this! I lived in the State of Missouri! Missouri was a border state during this time period. Though I didn't learn much about that state's history because I moved from there, I do know that slavery was not a major factor in the south leaving the union!
Again, yes and no. It was not the single largest factor, but if slavery was abolished, then the Southern economy would be ruined. In fact, most liberated slaves continued living on plantations after the war with little to no pay. The big exeption was that they had far more legal rights, and they were free to leave.

Again, just because it mentions slavery doesn't mean it was solely about slavery. There were multiple causes. No one is denying that slavery was a factor, mind you.
If you would keep up, I essentially admitted that I misspoke that when I claimed it was solely slavery. I do continue to argue that slavery was a major issue. I would like to see someone prove that it wasn't.

Name calling gets you nowhere except a name called back, moron! I never stated that it automatically made him an expert but that he'll have a better understanding of why his state seceded from the union you shmuck!
Your excessive exclamations annoy me to no end. Also, resorting to name-calling back doesn't help your cause: it makes you look just as bad as him, if not worse, since you seem to know better, yet you stoop to that person's level.

The military strategy of the South was Childish...

which has nothing to do with this thread.

The Missouri Sister-State compromise? That stopped working when the slave territories couldn't keep up with the free territories...

That would be the Missouri Compromise of 1820!

And I didn't change the meaning. The issue of slavery in the west was a HUGE part of the reasons behind the civil war. All I did was include the other tarriffs and such. They, in my opinion, are subordinate to the issue of slavery in the west however...

You did change the meaning! You incorporated all economics into your post, not just slavery in the west. Thus you did change the meaning of what you stated. The part I bolded is proof that you changed the meaning from socio-economics in expanding slavery to incorporating all economics into it.

Of course, like I already said, this is stuff that none of us experienced and no one is going to prove either side right or wrong.

This I won't argue with you.

Here's this! I lived in the State of Missouri! Missouri was a border state during this time period. Though I didn't learn much about that state's history because I moved from there, I do know that slavery was not a major factor in the south leaving the union!
What a strange thought process you have. You lived in MIssouri, and you moved from Missouri, so you know that slavery was not a major factor in the south leaving the union. Where's the logic? Your moving around isn't evidence supporting your claim.

You're just repeating yourself over and over again in hopes that by mere repitition your thesis will turn out correct. You're spewing out dates of battles, locations of cities, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

That would be the Missouri Compromise of 1820! Which worked for a while, but as I pointed out, the free territories kept on lining up while the slaves territories couldn't come up with anything.

You did change the meaning! You incorporated all economics into your post, not just slavery in the west. Thus you did change the meaning of what you stated. The part I bolded is proof that you changed the meaning from socio-economics in expanding slavery to incorporating all economics into it.
I fixed my misspokeness then. I did not mean to exclude the other economics as factors, however, the part I didn't change was the fact that the issue of slavery in the west play a major part--you continually deny this and have yet to provide any evidence to make me think otherwise.

Name calling gets you nowhere except a name called back, moron! I never stated that it automatically made him an expert but that he'll have a better understanding of why his state seceded from the union you shmuck!
How exactly does it make him have a better understanding of why his state seceded? I think his points are all correct, but it comes from studying the topic not from simply living in SC. You can study this stuff anywhere.

Your excessive exclamations annoy me to no end. Also, resorting to name-calling back doesn't help your cause: it makes you look just as bad as him, if not worse, since you seem to know better, yet you stoop to that person's level.

You are right terra but he called me names in 2 posts so I responded in kind to see how he liked it! As soon as he apologizes for calling me names, I will of course apologize.

How exactly does it make him have a better understanding of why his state seceded?

Because he'll get more of the history than us Antebellum. A person that lives in a state and raised in said state will have a much better grasp of state history than anyone of us could.

I think his points are all correct, but it comes from studying the topic not from simply living in SC. You can study this stuff anywhere.

Your right! His points are correct. You can study this anywhere but talking to people who have a slightly better understanding of state history will give us who don't a better perspective on what happened during this time point.

A person living in a particular state COULD have a better understanding as they do have a little bit better oppurtunity to learn, however I'm sure there are plenty of Europeans that know more about American history then lots of Americans do.

You are right terra but he called me names in 2 posts so I responded in kind to see how he liked it! As soon as he apologizes for calling me names, I will of course apologize.
In all honesty, I don't think he will care any, so it was likely rather pointless to insult. Oh, and those insults seemed almost comical, apologies. Oh, and here we go with the exclamations again. Anyhow, still, two wrongs don't make a right and it was rather foolish to stoop down to his level. Perhaps you should edit out those insults? It would be a shame if this were to turn into a flamewar, which it could easily do, as you've only fanned the embers.

"You're a moron!"
"You're a pussy who can't insult."
"Yeah? Well, you're a stupid fuck!"

Et cetera. Anyhow, back to joltifying.

Which worked for a while, but as I pointed out, the free territories kept on lining up while the slaves territories couldn't come up with anything.

Your right, it did work for awhile but other states voted to abolish slavery. This includes the new territory and it threatened to upset the balance in Congress. However, the states did maintain this parity until the South started to secede from the union in 1860, shortly after Lincoln was elected President.

I fixed my misspokeness then. I did not mean to exclude the other economics as factors, however, the part I didn't change was the fact that the issue of slavery in the west play a major part--you continually deny this and have yet to provide any evidence to make me think otherwise.

I never said that slavery wasn't a part. It was a part but it was not a LARGE part as you claim it was. Also, you also are not providing proof that it was a major part.

I never said that slavery wasn't a part. It was a part but it was not a LARGE part as you claim it was. Also, you also are not providing proof that it was a major part.
No one ever commented on my detailed post explaining the two sides of the issue of slavery in the west.

Because he'll get more of the history than us Antebellum. A person that lives in a state and raised in said state will have a much better grasp of state history than anyone of us could.
Erm, that does not automatically mean that the person who lived in SC assumes more knowledge than us. People can know more about foreign lands than the foreigner themselves does, and although while not too terribly common, it happens. Just because a person was born and raised in a state does not automatically mean that they can know more about their state than someone from outside of it. It's somewhat like claiming that a person from the time era, the 1860s, would know more about it than a person who invests their time learning about it, or even simply puts forth more effort to learn about it; granted that the person from the time period may not have the accessibility to learn it, the point still stands as we are talking about modern times glancing into the past on both party-fields and all have equal opportunity to learn. However, the person might have skipped a few classes and not have learned as much. *grins* However, this does not mean that I'm taking sides. I'm merely trying to point something out. Besides, assuming the source has no bias for the South, anyone could learn the same amount of things about what happened in the past in the region as the other. Unless either of the party was on the administrative side of either side of the war during the war, I don't think it's safe to assume that one has a better understanding of the past than another.

A person may know more about someone else than that other may know about their own selves.

Because he'll get more of the history than us Antebellum. A person that lives in a state and raised in said state will have a much better grasp of state history than anyone of us could. Your right! His points are correct. You can study this anywhere but talking to people who have a slightly better understanding of state history will give us who don't a better perspective on what happened during this time point.
How does he get a better perspective? None of the people he talks with were around during the civil war. "Better understanding" just means bias. Everyone anywhere can find out the facts and figures about the Civil War. Its just the interpretation that matters. I agree with HadesRulesMuch, but I'm not going to say he has some cryptic "better understanding" and knows something that no one outside South Carolina knows. I agree with him, it's simple as that.

How does he get a better perspective? None of the people he talks with were around during the civil war.

No they weren't however, there are records that go back to that time at the state archive building that will have the records of what occured then. Also, I never mentioned that he has to talk to people. I believe every kid has to learn their state's history! I know I had MO and my current state's history rammed down my throat! You can learn most of your history through that as well as through the State Archives Building!

The Civil war was about slavery. Period. Not about whether slavery would or would not be outlawed (Northerners were very racist at the time too), but about what would happen with slavery in the west. Northerners felt that the west could be the land of oppurtunity for poor white people to go out, get some land, and move up economically/socially. Rich, white southern slave holders wanted this land because with a planter class man died, if his land was split between all of his sons, they would all be less well off than they were before. The south wanted the west to be open to slavery so they could expand their profits. The north viewed slavery in the west as a threat to the opportunity that could be provided to poor white men.

Also, pre-Civil war southerners were very pro-National strength. The southerners got the fugitive slave law passed so that all states would have to capture and assist in returning slaves to their proper southern owners. Incidentially, the Wisconsin supreme court said that the Fugitive Slave act was against Wisconsin state laws and therefore claimed to nulligy the fugitive slave act. Essentially every southern newspaper at the time said that they couldn't do this.

It wasn't until after the civil war that the former VP of the CSA started writing the argument saying it was about states' rights, not slavery. I made the comparison to Bush because pre-Iraqi war he had reasons to start the war like WMDs and such, but when it turned out Iraq didn't have any, he switched over to justifying the war because he was liberating Iraqis. This was never a reason before the war just like trying to uphold states' rights was never a reason for starting the Civil War. I'm not saying whether either of this reasons are good or bad, I'm just explaining the comparison.
It was on the first page. I took my turn of defending my side and people argued against my side, but not against my defense.

EDIT: I have since admitted to having misspoken. It was not solely about slavery, however, the first paragraph of that quote has plenty of good reasons why slavery was a major issue.

No they weren't however, there are records that go back to that time at the state archive building that will have the records of what occured then.
Anyone can visit archives, not just citizens of the particular place.

Also, I never mentioned that he has to talk to people. I believe every kid has to learn their state's history! I know I had MO and my current state's history rammed down my throat! You can learn most of your history through that as well as through the State Archives Building!
That proves nothing. Anyone even someone from halfway around the world can master the history of South Carolina.

Anyone can visit archives, not just citizens of the particular place.
But it is more accessible to someone who is already there. I somehow doubt that whoever it is we are talking about has spent much time in the archives however...

Here's something from John C. Calhoun, the greatest South Carolinian statesman of all time. He clearly describes how slavery is central to the South's identity and how any future conflict between North and South will concern slavery.


John C. Calhoun, "Slavery a Positive Good," 6 February 1837

Occasion: Speech given in the Senate.


I do not belong, said Mr. C., to the school which holds that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine is the opposite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met at the beginning, and that those who act on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves. In this case, in particular. I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If we concede an inch, concession would follow concession — compromise would follow compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual resistance would be impossible. We must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a fixed determination of maintaining our position at every hazard. Consent to receive these insulting petitions, and the next demand will be that they be referred to a committee in order that they may be deliberated and acted upon. At the last session we were modestly asked to receive them, simply to lay them on the table, without any view to ulterior action. . . . I then said, that the next step would be to refer the petition to a committee, and I already see indications that such is now the intention. If we yield, that will be followed by another, and we will thus proceed, step by step, to the final consummation of the object of these petitions. We are now told that the most effectual mode of arresting the progress of abolition is, to reason it down; and with this view it is urged that the petitions ought to be referred to a committee. That is the very ground which was taken at the last session in the other House, but instead of arresting its progress it has since advanced more rapidly than ever. The most unquestionable right may be rendered doubtful, if once admitted to be a subject of controversy, and that would be the case in the present instance. The subject is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress — they have no right to touch it in any shape or form, or to make it the subject of deliberation or discussion. . . .
1


As widely as this incendiary spirit has spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the great mass of the intelligent and business portion of the North; but unless it be speedily stopped, it will spread and work upwards till it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly conflict. This is not a new impression with me. Several years since, in a discussion with one of the Senators from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), before this fell spirit had showed itself, I then predicted that the doctrine of the proclamation and the Force Bill — that this Government had a right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of its own powers, and enforce its decision at the point of the bayonet, which was so warmly maintained by that Senator, would at no distant day arouse the dormant spirit of abolitionism. I told him that the doctrine was tantamount to the assumption of unlimited power on the part of the Government, and that such would be the impression on the public mind in a large portion of the Union. The consequence would be inevitable. A large portion of the Northern States believed slavery to be a sin, and would consider it as an obligation of conscience to abolish it if they should feel themselves in any degree responsible for its continuance, and that this doctrine would necessarily lead to the belief of such responsibility. I then predicted that it would commence as it has with this fanatical portion of society, and that they would begin their operations on the ignorant, the weak, the young, and the thoughtless, — and gradually extend upwards till they would become strong enough to obtain political control, when he and others holding the highest stations in society, would, however reluctant, be compelled to yield to their doctrines, or be driven into obscurity. But four years have since elapsed, and all this is already in a course of regular fulfilment.
2


Standing at the point of time at which we have now arrived, it will not be more difficult to trace the course of future events now than it was then. They who imagine that the spirit now abroad in the North, will die away of itself without a shock or convulsion, have formed a very inadequate conception of its real character; it will continue to rise and spread, unless prompt and efficient measures to stay its progress be adopted. Already it has taken possession of the pulpit, of the schools, and, to a considerable extent, of the press; those great instruments by which the mind of the rising generation will be formed.
3
"We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both."
However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, two people. It is impossible under the deadly hatred which must spring up between the two great nations, if the present causes are permitted to operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same political system. The conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together. Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim it, — and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country or the other of the races. . . . But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil: — far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.
4

In the meantime, the white or European race, has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other sections of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which adorn our nature.
5
But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good — a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. I might well challenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe — look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse. But I will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North. . . . Surrounded as the slaveholding States are with such imminent perils, I rejoice to think that our means of defense are ample, if we shall prove to have the intelligence and spirit to see and apply them before it is too late. All we want is concert, to lay aside all party differences and unite with zeal and energy in repelling approaching dangers. Let there be concert of action, and we shall find ample means of security without resorting to secession or disunion. I speak with full knowledge and a thorough examination of the subject, and for one see my way clearly. . . . I dare not hope that anything I can say will arouse the South to a due sense of danger; I fear it is beyond the power of mortal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal security into which it has fallen.



http://douglassarchives.org/calh_a59.htm

But it is more accessible to someone who is already there. I somehow doubt that whoever it is we are talking about has spent much time in the archives however...
There is also a thing called digitalised archives, which are accessible on the internet, if I recall correctly.

There is also a thing called digitalised archives, which are accessible on the internet, if I recall correctly.

Correct! I know I'll be using them when I do history research papers this year.

There is also a thing called digitalised archives, which are accessible on the internet, if I recall correctly.
Hmm, I knew a lot of things were online now but I didn't realize that absolutely everything from public archives are online now. Hmm, cool. Oh well, another argument is that he would have more of a natural interest in South Carolinian history, however it does not prove him to be more qualified in the subject area.

But it is more accessible to someone who is already there.
Exactly, but merely living in South Carolina doesn't automatically make someone have a 'better understanding' as Formal Dances is implying. They still have to go to the archives and look stuff up. But looking stuff up can be something anyone in the world does. If they do their homework any random person can acquire the same amount of knowledge about the Civil War as any South Carolinian can.

Correct! I know I'll be using them when I do history research papers this year.
Exactly, hence the same information is available to everyone, unless there is some non-digitalised information, which, of course, is only available to those who are willing to get their lazy arses off of their 'luxurious' sofas and what-have-you.

I wonder when Formal Dances will start arguing against my argument or admit that he was wrong in calling me wrong (not necessarily that his argument is wrong, just that mine isn't wrong)...

Exactly, hence the same information is available to everyone, unless there is some non-digitalised information, which, of course, is only available to those who are willing to get their lazy arses off of their 'luxurious' sofas and what-have-you.

Or travel! I live 5 hours by car from my state capitol so it'll be difficult for me to go there. I did visit Alabama's though. Didn't go through the records but I did tour it. Very nice if I do say so myself.

There is also a thing called digitalised archives, which are accessible on the internet, if I recall correctly.
I doubt every scrap of paper concerning a particular subject is on line though. THere are a lot of important and obscure artifacts that can illuminate one's understanding, but a lot of times they are in private collections or out-of-the-way places. Visiting local sites is still absolutely necessary for maximizing one's knowledge.

I wonder when Formal Dances will start arguing against my argument or admit that he was wrong in calling me wrong (not necessarily that his argument is wrong, just that mine isn't wrong)...
Formal Dances is a she. Oh, and I'm sorry for hijacking your thread, Opal; I just felt that I had to say what I had to say.

Jews.

















...
j/k
Southerners of course, it wasnt the War of Southern Treason for nothing.

Formal Dances is a she.
Doesn't change the fact that she was wrong about saying I didn't defend my side of the argument and that she still hasn't retorted to the defense.

Doesn't change the fact that she was wrong about saying I didn't defend my side of the argument and that she still hasn't retorted to the defense.

Opal, did I say that you didn't defend your arguement? No I believe I did not!

The Civil War was about Northerns wanting slavery gone, and Southerners who because of an economy that relied on farming didn't want this. So they split, and attacked the North. The Yankees seeing this as a threat to the indivisable image of the Union counter attacked. Blockaids were put up for two reasons. One to keep countries like England, and France who imported 50% of their cotten from the South from getting involved.(There was one instant where a British ship was captured that near caused war between the Union and England) The other was to keep the South from importing supplies. A man could make $250,000 in one blockaid run. He would sell his cotten in England for I think $5 a pound, and then buy supplies and sell them back the Southerners. Call me a Confederate, but if the South had the man power, and supplies that the North had they would have rolled over the Union. Why? Think about this both armies lost about half of their men. The South had about half the men the North had, and lower supplies. But Southerners had much higher moral(defending their homes), took infintly better care of their weapons, and General Robert E. Lee. Beaten only once in battle(Gettysburg). Ironic that Lee a general founded a university devoted to teaching lawers and diplomats after the war. Even though he was a Confederate I think Lee has got to be one of the finest men this country has ever seen. (In fact he never led the Confederates because he was a racist, but he couldn't stand the idea of attacking his homeland)

....So they split, and attacked the North. The south attacked the North????

Was it really a debate about states' rights? Or did the south just try pulling the same crap that Bush is pulling now about "liberating" Iraqis? You should probably learn more about pre-War southern states before you answer.

All the blame lies solely on mass-murderer Abe Lincoln's shoulders. Dishonest Abe was, after all, our first communist President, and a brutal, sadistic, totalitarian, megalomaniacal tyrant.

The south attacked the North????

Yes they did Revolutionsz! The South started the Civil War in April 1861 by attacking Ft. Sumpter. Four years later, the south was destroyed, both literally and figuratively.

The south attacked the North????
Yep.

The south attacked the North????

yeah. probably the origin of the 'stupid southerner' stereotype.

"i have an idea. instead of just leaving the union so we can keep our slaves, why don't we start a war with our old, militarily superior country while we're at it?" retards.

All the blame lies solely on mass-murderer Abe Lincoln's shoulders. Dishonest Abe was, after all, our first communist President, and a brutal, sadistic, totalitarian, megalomaniacal tyrant.

Oh my God! This is nothing but a pack of lies? What mass murder? Oh you mean the hundreds of thousands soldiers dead on the Confederates? In that case, Jefferson Davis is guilty of the same. Totalitarian? Oh you mean shutting down papers that where extreme but then it was a time of war and some civil liberties are canceled during a time of war.

Oh my God! This is nothing but a pack of lies? What mass murder? Oh you mean the hundreds of thousands soldiers dead on the Confederates? In that case, Jefferson Davis is guilty of the same. Totalitarian? Oh you mean shutting down papers that where extreme but then it was a time of war and some civil liberties are canceled during a time of war.

You are of course permitted to disagree (and I commend you for doing so without a single flame). I would, however, recommend The Real Lincoln. You don't have to agree with it, but I'd recommend at least reading the first few chapters, to gain some new perspective on our first communist President.

yeah. probably the origin of the 'stupid southerner' stereotype.

"i have an idea. instead of just leaving the union so we can keep our slaves, why don't we start a war with our old, militarily superior country while we're at it?" retards.
No, that got started after the reconstruction.

"Hey, lets see if we can get blackie to be a second class citizen without the North noticing!"

Unfortuantely, they got away with it.

Its almost like if Mexico Attacked the US...What were they Thinking?

You are of course permitted to disagree (and I commend you for doing so without a single flame). I would, however, recommend The Real Lincoln. You don't have to agree with it, but I'd recommend at least reading the first few chapters, to gain some new perspective on our first communist President.

Title of the Book and who is it by? Obviously you have a different take on Lincoln and I applaud you for it but that DOES NOT mean he was and I quote you "our first communist President, and a brutal, sadistic, totalitarian, megalomaniacal tyrant."

You sir, are mistaken.

Its almost like if Mexico Attacked the US...What were they Thinking?
Worst excuse to start a war until Vietnam rolled about...

Its almost like if Mexico Attacked the US...What were they Thinking?

Mexico never truely did attack us. They violated the recognized border between the US and Mexico that was recognized after Texas seceded from Mexico and won its Independence! Thus US Declared war and defeated Mexico in 1848 I believe it was.

Title of the Book and who is it by? Obviously you have a different take on Lincoln and I applaud you for it but that DOES NOT mean he was and I quote you "our first communist President, and a brutal, sadistic, totalitarian, megalomaniacal tyrant."

You sir, are mistaken.

A.Thanks for disagreeing politely, courteously, and without flaming
B.The title of the book is The Real Lincoln. The author is Thomas J. DiLorenzo. You can get it for fifteen bucks at Barnes and Noble, but I'd recommend just going to the library.

It's obviously because Americans are violent disgusting people and started killing each other for the sheer joy of it.
...

A.Thanks for disagreeing politely, courteously, and without flaming
B.The title of the book is The Real Lincoln. The author is Thomas J. DiLorenzo. You can get it for fifteen bucks at Barnes and Noble, but I'd recommend just going to the library.

Just did a search on him and I don't think I'll give him any of my money. From what I've seen, he sounds like an anarchist.

Mexico never truely did attack us. They violated the recognized border between the US and Mexico that was recognized after Texas seceded from Mexico and won its Independence! Thus US Declared war and defeated Mexico in 1848 I believe it was.

That boarder was never recognized my Mexico...

It's obviously because Americans are violent disgusting people and started killing each other for the sheer joy of it.
...

Ok then explain to us why Europe has had so many wars wage across its continent killing even more people than we did during our civil war!

That boarder was never recognized my Mexico...

Actually it was recognized it but then they didn't recognize it. A Mexican Flip Flop!

Ok then explain to us why Europe has had so many wars wage across its continent killing even more people than we did during our civil war!

Europeans only to incite Americans to come over and fight, then we could kill them.

Europeans only to incite Americans to come over and fight, then we could kill them.

And lost TWO wars! World War I and World War II!

And lost TWO wars! World War I and World War II!
How the hell did Europe lose two world wars?

Opal, did I say that you didn't defend your arguement? No I believe I did not!
Well, it's good to know that you're not going to try proving any part of my argument wrong yet still say that it's wrong. Anyway...I've got Cal to do...

How the hell did Europe lose two world wars?

Ok! Germany is in Europe as is Austria and Hungary (Austria-Hungary empire) Lost WWI! Italy is also in Europe and were allied with Germany and they both lost WWII! Hense, Europe lost WWI and WWII with these nations! I was using general terms.

Well, it's good to know that you're not going to try proving any part of my argument wrong yet still say that it's wrong. Anyway...I've got Cal to do...

YUCK!! I don't start school to August 30th :D

And lost TWO wars! World War I and World War II!

Everyone knows those were both evil American plots to overthrow superior Europe.

Hateful American.

Everyone knows those were both evil American plots to overthrow superior Europe.

Hateful American.

HAHA!! If that was the case then Spain would've been a US possession after their disasterous war with the USA in 1898 and they wouldn't have had a civil war that the Germans trained their pilots and forces with before they launched on their disasterous war in Europe!

All of those on that list are good if you can admit that it wasn't about states' rights until after it was all said and done.Yes, except that slavery was behind most all of the "non-slavery" reasons. "The Peculiar Institution" dictated every aspect of southern life: economic, political, social etc. You name it. Cotton was "King" and dominated everything. For example, the U.S. Mail was censored of abolitionist literature. Poor whites (who could not vote until after the war because they didn't own land) were drafted into slave patrols that sought runaways. This was conscription. Everyone was affected by the draconian Slave Codes of the antebellum South. The slave states were, quite simply, police states.

Sometimes the “non-slavery” reasons are totally bogus such as the agricultural vs. industrial argument which doesn’t explain why the agricultural Midwest stayed in the Union. The reason, as you pointed out, is that Midwesterners saw plantation agriculture the same way today’s family farms see agribusiness. Plus, as you pointed out, very many were racist and wanted to keep the West white-only, so the opposed the spread of slavery for that reason.

Ok! Germany is in Europe as is Austria and Hungary (Austria-Hungary empire) Lost WWI! Italy is also in Europe and were allied with Germany and they both lost WWII! Hense, Europe lost WWI and WWII with these nations! I was using general terms.
Well, using that logic, Europe also won two world wars through England and France...

Everyone knows those were both evil American plots to overthrow superior Europe.

Hateful American.

No, it was arch-fiends in Europe who used treachery to drag us into the two worlds which were none of our freaking business.

HAHA!! If that was the case then Spain would've been a US possession after their disasterous war with the USA in 1898 and they wouldn't have had a civil war that the Germans trained their pilots and forces with before they launched on their disasterous war in Europe!



Everyone knows it was just American aggression at work.

Always trying to keep the black man down.

No, it was arch-fiends in Europe who used treachery to drag us into the two worlds which were none of our freaking business.
Ah, yes, those damn Jap european arch-fiends...wait, isn't Japan in Asia?

Anyone who says that the Civil War was over slavery is a poor, sad soul who listens to modern day middle school retoric. The sadder thing is that you've done research into it and know the truth, but refuse to condense it because you WANT it to be about slavery. ::shakes his head::

I've heard economy, I've heard slavery, I've heard expansion, I've heard ALL legitament reasons, but what's Opal's problem is that she keeps it at that. "See? They wanted to expand slavery and the north wouldn't let them! Therefor, the war was over slavery!"

Would you think for once in your life, maybe for three seconds at least? LOOK, you don't even have to think outside of the box! WHY was that a problem? WHY was that a big deal? Because the federal government had legitametly stepped outside of its boundaries (declaration of independance boundaries, if not constitutional) and began to mandate what states could and could not do!

In other words, the federal government was now sovereign over states, and therefor people. Individual freedom had become further constricted, individual sovereignty of regions such as states and what individuals wished to do had become a less debatable subject. Just as depicted in ... what? Georgia's seccession paper thing posted here earlier? The federal government had become a strange twisted version of rule like the English, and the south aimed at breaking away from this.

Jefferson Davis didn't want to leave the union, but he resigned from the senate saluting his fellow "senators of the north," apologising to them for arguments, and saying he respected them as great men, but felt that resigning was something he needed to do to preserve the freedom of the people in the south.

So yah, if you want to go on details, it was about slavery -- but it was more than that. It was about rights of the individual and the state, it was a fight for freedom from federal dictation, and it was a fight that I am ... personally ... sorry the south lost.

Every state that'll ever join the union will be slaves now, thanks to President Abe. Every individual under it a prisoner to federal dictation, the loss of individual freedom, rights, self rule. And no wonder Puerto Rico declines becoming a state every year. They know better. At least they had that choice.

HAHA!! If that was the case then Spain would've been a US possession after their disasterous war with the USA in 1898 and they wouldn't have had a civil war that the Germans trained their pilots and forces with before they launched on their disasterous war in Europe!
Using the great transatlantic amphibious fleet, right formal?

No, it was arch-fiends in Europe who used treachery to drag us into the two worlds which were none of our freaking business.

in this case -Vietnam-I agree that europe dragged us into WWII! WWI we went on our own accord and was not attached to any alliance during WWI!

Ah, yes, those damn Jap european arch-fiends...wait, isn't Japan in Asia?

First of all, lose the sarcasm, sir. Second of all, I was talking about Winston Churchill and his globalist, warmongering bastard fiends- er, friends.

Using the great transatlantic amphibious fleet, right formal?

Actually Technology! Ironclads on Wood don't mix! LOL!!!

First of all, lose the sarcasm, sir. Second of all, I was talking about Winston Churchill and his globalist, warmongering bastard fiends- er, friends.
So Churchill baited the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor and got the Germans to declare war?

So Churchill baited the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor and got the Germans to declare war?

He did everything he could to get us into the war against Germany. Arch-traitor bastard FDR tried but failed, so he had to come in through the back door, via an attack by Japan.

Sometimes the “non-slavery” reasons are totally bogus such as the agricultural vs. industrial argument which doesn’t explain why the agricultural Midwest stayed in the Union.
Midwestern agriculture was not based on exported cash crops though. Northern tariffs caused foreigners to buy less Southern cotton, thus alienating the South. True, the whole premise of the south's cash crop economy was slavery, but the north's economic policy was not aimed at resolving the slavery issue but is common to all nations with a large cash crop economic sectors such as the British Empire's India policy.

He did everything he could to get us into the war against Germany. Arch-traitor bastard FDR tried but failed, so he had to come in through the back door, via an attack by Japan.

Well in a way that's right! he did try but the USA DID NOT!! No one predicted Pearl for the attack. They thought somewhere in the Far East like Manila. However, the Japanese caught us with our pants down and destroyed the Pacific Fleet! Luckily our carriers where not in port at the time!

You need to stop listening to conspiracy theories.

He did everything he could to get us into the war against Germany. Arch-traitor bastard FDR tried but failed, so he had to come in through the back door, via an attack by Japan.
I bet he did. You do realize that there is zero evidence for this, and even if there was, Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the United States if this was a hoax.

I bet he did. You do realize that there is zero evidence for this, and even if there was, Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the United States if this was a hoax.

So True!

The civil war was unquestionably about slavery because the Secessionists said so themselves. Much like Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, the Secessionists penned their own justifications and they all go on and on about slavery.

Yes, they mention States Rights – and explicitly connect it to slavery. Mississippi's document declares, "That the institution of slavery existed prior to the formation of the federal Constitution, and is recognized by its letter". South Carolina’s document claims that the provision in the Constitution obliquely protecting slavery were so important that, “This stipulation was so material to the compact that without it that compact would not have been made.” Both states claimed that the North had broken this contract and thus the South was free to go.

Secessionists argued that States Rights gave them the right to leave, but the plainly proclaimed that agitation over slavery was what gave them the reason to. South Carolina again:

“They have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace of and eloign the property of the citizens of other states. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and, those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common, government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found, within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has I 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.”

I think “servile insurrection” has to be my favorite oxymoron of all time. Now let's listen to Mississippi:

"That they have by voluntary associations, individual agencies, and state legislation interfered with slavery as it prevails in the slaveholding states, That they have enticed our slaves from us and, by state intervention, obstructed and prevented their rendition under the Fugitive Slave Law; That they continue their system of agitation obviously for the purpose of encouraging other slaves to escape from service, to weaken the institution in the slaveholding states by rendering the holding of such property insecure, and as a consequence its ultimate abolition certain; That they claim the right and demand its execution by Congress, to exclude slavery from the territories, but claim the right of protection for every species of property owned by themselves; That they have by voluntary associations, individual agencies, and state legislation interfered with slavery as it prevails in the slaveholding states; ..." And on and on and on it goes.

Hmmm ... sounds like they are exclusively concerned with the preservation of slavery. Thomas Jefferson's list of grievances against King George was a bit more varried. Things such as the tariff are mentioned in passing, but otherwise the list goes: slavery, slavery, slavery, ...

Mississippi’s Resolution on Secession:
https://courseware.vt.edu/users/wachau/secession/documents/MississippiResolutions.html

South Carolina’s Resolution on Secession:
https://courseware.vt.edu/users/wachau/secession/documents/SCdeclarations.html

You need to stop listening to conspiracy theories.

I dunno about -Vietnam-, but I could recommend lots of books proving FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, many of which drew their information from government sources.

I dunno about -Vietnam-, but I could recommend lots of books proving FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, many of which drew their information from government sources.

Again conspiracy theory! There's people out there that say that Bush knew about 9/11 but the 9/11 commission report stated that he didn't! I could write a book on this and make millions! Anyone can write a book on a subject but unless they have actually facts....

As for government sources, Intelligence had no clue that Pearl was a target! They were thinking Manila or somewhere in the Far East. Not our back yard.

Again conspiracy theory!

Why not do some research before jumping to conclusions? You sound just like Drabikstan (except he's an idiot and you're not).

Why not do some research before jumping to conclusions? You sound just like Drabikstan (except he's an idiot and you're not).

Well thanks for not calling me an Idiot! If he did know we were going to be attacked, don't you think we would've been better prepared? I will of course research this because I do love researching history but I don't believe that he knew ahead of time! Watch Tora, Tora, Tora Very good movie!

Anyone who says that the Civil War was over slavery is a poor, sad soul who listens to modern day middle school retoric. The sadder thing is that you've done research into it and know the truth, but refuse to condense it because you WANT it to be about slavery. ::shakes his head::

I've heard economy, I've heard slavery, I've heard expansion, I've heard ALL legitament reasons, but what's Opal's problem is that she keeps it at that. "See? They wanted to expand slavery and the north wouldn't let them! Therefor, the war was over slavery!"

Would you think for once in your life, maybe for three seconds at least? LOOK, you don't even have to think outside of the box! WHY was that a problem? WHY was that a big deal? Because the federal government had legitametly stepped outside of its boundaries (declaration of independance boundaries, if not constitutional) and began to mandate what states could and could not do!

In other words, the federal government was now sovereign over states, and therefor people. Individual freedom had become further constricted, individual sovereignty of regions such as states and what individuals wished to do had become a less debatable subject. Just as depicted in ... what? Georgia's seccession paper thing posted here earlier? The federal government had become a strange twisted version of rule like the English, and the south aimed at breaking away from this.

Jefferson Davis didn't want to leave the union, but he resigned from the senate saluting his fellow "senators of the north," apologising to them for arguments, and saying he respected them as great men, but felt that resigning was something he needed to do to preserve the freedom of the people in the south.

So yah, if you want to go on details, it was about slavery -- but it was more than that. It was about rights of the individual and the state, it was a fight for freedom from federal dictation, and it was a fight that I am ... personally ... sorry the south lost.

Every state that'll ever join the union will be slaves now, thanks to President Abe. Every individual under it a prisoner to federal dictation, the loss of individual freedom, rights, self rule. And no wonder Puerto Rico declines becoming a state every year. They know better. At least they had that choice.

Best writen thing I've read yet on these forums.

Wait the South attacked the North?
Yes. Remember WW1? The US army was about what 2,000? Huge draft, and the army sky rocketed in size. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Since the Unions army was in pathetic shape. That and Lee the original leader of the Unions' army left for the South. Thats one of the reasons the South kicked the Norths ass bad at the start.

(...snip...)

Would you think for once in your life, maybe for three seconds at least? LOOK, you don't even have to think outside of the box! WHY was that a problem? WHY was that a big deal? Because the federal government had legitametly stepped outside of its boundaries (declaration of independance boundaries, if not constitutional) and began to mandate what states could and could not do!

In other words, the federal government was now sovereign over states, and therefor people. Individual freedom had become further constricted, individual sovereignty of regions such as states and what individuals wished to do had become a less debatable subject. Just as depicted in ... what? Georgia's seccession paper thing posted here earlier? The federal government had become a strange twisted version of rule like the English, and the south aimed at breaking away from this.

(...snip...)

So yah, if you want to go on details, it was about slavery -- but it was more than that. It was about rights of the individual and the state, it was a fight for freedom from federal dictation, and it was a fight that I am ... personally ... sorry the south lost.

Every state that'll ever join the union will be slaves now, thanks to President Abe. Every individual under it a prisoner to federal dictation, the loss of individual freedom, rights, self rule. And no wonder Puerto Rico declines becoming a state every year. They know better. At least they had that choice.

Would you read all of my posts before you criticize me for not thinking, please? The south had the Fugitive Slave act passed which put the federal government past it's contemporary limits just as much as the abolition of slavery, or the limiting of slavery in the west, would have. When the Wisconsin supreme court (WI is in the north, in case you were wondering) said that they would not uphold the Fugitive Slave act because it did not agree with their state laws, etcetera and said they nullified the national law, southern newspapers every where were writing articles about how they couldn't do this. The states' rights argument just doesn't hold a lot of water. And like I also noted, no one was saying a whole lot about the states' rights bit until the VP of the CSA was writing about it in the 1870s...

Well thanks for not calling me an Idiot! If he did know we were going to be attacked, don't you think we would've been better prepared? I will of course research this because I do love researching history but I don't believe that he knew ahead of time! Watch Tora, Tora, Tora Very good movie!

You're welcome. In fact, you're the opposite of an idiot. I don't know you, but you seem quite sharp. And you're a history buff, which is always a plus. Best of all, you disagree with the utmost politeness and civility, like a true gentleman (I'm assuming you're a male?). As for the film you mentioned, I haven't seen it, but I plan to.

You are of course permitted to disagree (and I commend you for doing so without a single flame). I would, however, recommend The Real Lincoln. You don't have to agree with it, but I'd recommend at least reading the first few chapters, to gain some new perspective on our first communist President.That piece of crap is littered with lies - among them is the charge that Lincoln didn't really care about slavery.

There is a lot of confusion and obfuscation concerning Lincoln and the abolition of slavery. Admittedly, Abe was being a sly dog and a tactical politician, but that doesn't mean he was ambivalent about slavery.

Many people point to his statement that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would as proof that the Civil war wasn't about slavery. Lincoln made this statement about two weeks before his Proclamation of Emancipation in order to prepare the public for it. He was saying that Slavery was the cause of the war and ironically some quote his comments to prove the opposite. Lincoln wanted to make this proclamation months earlier, but his cabinet convinced him to hold off until Union troops had first won a significant victory in the field.

Moreover, Lincoln made the Proclamation of Emancipation in an election year and fully expected to loose to McClellan because of it. So much for being power-hungry. If McClellan won, he would no doubt, immediately sue for peace and re-admit the Southern states with the institution of slavery intact. After making the proclamation, Lincoln met with black abolitionist Fredrick Douglas to discuss this situation. Lincoln told Douglass what was likely and urged him to have the “Underground Rail Road” arrange a massive Northward exodus before the election. (Many slaves were awaiting the arrival of Yankee troops, although many did indeed take advantage of the chaos of war to make their escape.) Such a large migration would make returning escaped slaves logistically impossible. This doesn’t sound like somebody who didn’t care about blacks. Lincoln took a big political risk on principle.

The Proclamation specifically targets those states in rebellion because Lincoln was worried about alienating the loyal border. The loss of Kentucky would have given the Confederacy a defensive natural barrier (the Ohio River) that may have cost the North the war. After winning the war it would be (and was) easy to abolish slavery in the middle states – particularly since these states had mixed economies that weren’t dependent on the cotton monoculture economy.

Was Abe Lincoln being sly? Absolutely - every step of the way. But, again, that doesn’t mean that Lincoln was unconcerned with slavery. I know this is true, not because I live in Kentucky, but because I had studied it.

Mind you Lincoln did say a lot of things that don't sit too well with capitalist facists:

"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

- Lincoln in a letter to William F. Elkins, Nov 21st, 1864 Lincoln Encyclopedia under the heading "Civil War, Aftermath feared" Page 40 single volume.

There is plenty more where that came from, but it is no more "un-American" than many things our Founding Fathers said (see my signature). In fact, what is and isn't American has been completely turned on its head by conservatives.

Best writen thing I've read yet on these forums.


Yes. Remember WW1? The US army was about what 2,000? Huge draft, and the army sky rocketed in size. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Since the Unions army was in pathetic shape. That and Lee the original leader of the Unions' army left for the South. Thats one of the reasons the South kicked the Norths ass bad at the start.
So they started an attack to increase the size of the North's army? What?

You're welcome. In fact, you're the opposite of an idiot. I don't know you, but you seem quite sharp. And you're a history buff, which is always a plus. Best of all, you disagree with the utmost politeness and civility, like a true gentleman (I'm assuming you're a male?). As for the film you mentioned, I haven't seen it, but I plan to.

I'm actually a lady. Watch Tora Tora Tora! Trust me, you won't be disappointed :)

It was about rights of the individual and the state

to own slaves.

it was a fight for freedom from federal dictation

except in cases where northern states didn't want to return runaway slaves. then a little federal dictation to ensure that people were not free was just what the doctor ordered.

Exactly.

Wow seriously...this makes no sense. I read only the first page of this and I am already going crazy. The stuff you are saying Opal Isle on the first page is...well I dont know what to call it.

You can not compare the current war with the American Civil war. They are two entirely different wars with different reasons. Everyone thinks the civil war was started by slavery. Indeed it played a good role in the Civil war, but this was not only reason at all. Someone listed them before and you can reread that list.

If you want to compare the current war to some other war to explain your views, I suggest finding a better war.

Wow seriously...this makes no sense. I read only the first page of this and I am already going crazy. The stuff you are saying Opal Isle on the first page is...well I dont know what to call it.

You can not compare the current war with the American Civil war. They are two entirely different wars with different reasons. Everyone thinks the civil war was started by slavery. Indeed it played a good role in the Civil war, but this was not only reason at all. Someone listed them before and you can reread that list.

If you want to compare the current war to some other war to explain your views, I suggest finding a better war.
And I suggest you read all the posts and until then shut the hell up because I explained the light comparison. And I wasn't comparing the wars.

By the way, I screwed up the poll, so...whatever...(just added it)

Maybe I signed on a little late. Maybe this thread died? I don't know, I'm not paying that much attention. What I do know is that I see a lot of WW1 and WW2, and I'm focusing mainly on what I stated before --

Slavery was a right of the state. I heard earlier that the war was about keeping the expansion of slavery from coming out, and that northerners didn't care about slavery in the south. Now I here Abe was a sly dog, but loved and cared for the slaves and had every intention of freeing them. I dunno, maybe he should have started with his wife. Her family owned them.

All issues provoke. Saddam Hussein believed that Kuwait should be apart of Iraq, U.S. didn't. Was that why they went to war? No. We went to war, as ole JFK put it, to "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." And then the liberal will tell you we wanted oil. I don't know, I figure we could have bought it from Saddam.

My point is, if you say the issue was the reason of the war, instead of the principle of what was happening, you can't be that bright of a logistic. Its principle that drives us, steers us towards morality, or downhill to oppression. Its what makes up apart from the animal; the urge to have sex, or the wish of expressing intimacy with a loved partner. Its what separates the sentient from the souless, the principle of the issue, rather than the issue at hand.

Whether the south wanted to expand slavery or not, what the war was fought over was the union boa around their neck, constricting that freedom from them. Documents will tell you that, people will tell you that, the examination of the human love for principle will tell you that. People will write on an on about an issue nonstop because issues are in the now. The issues are always in the now, in the head, on the table and up for grabs in the tunnel visioned view of society. But in the heart lies the principle -- no man will go throw his life on the line and out of the way for a black man, that some thought were nothing more than dirt. Sure, some fought over slavery. The black man dawning that grey uniform gave his life for his family, his master, because his master treated him kindly and with respect, and fed him, and let him live ... and that was the only life he knew, and he was willing to die for it.

So if one is so bold to stick their finger out and say "Look at those stupid republican southerns back there, fighting and dying for something as inmoral and stupid as slavery," I'd beg you to rethink your logic once again. Humanity is defined by the thought and cultivation of the civilized morality contradictory to the animalistic desire of sin, and the love of principle that that directs it. Animals don't fight wars. Monsters may start them, but they're always fought and decided on a human principle of whats right.

The principle was the freedom of the individual and the region, not the color of a man's skin, not the want and desire for oppression.

I don't know, I'm not paying that much attention.No, I guess you are not.

Slavery was a right of the state.WTF?

I dunno, maybe he should have started with his wife. Her family owned them. The issue tore families apart. Yes, her family owned slaves; they also fought for the Confederacy. She stopped speaking to them before then. And incidentally, Mrs. Lincoln became a greater opponent to slavery than her husband. She was pushing him toward emancipation. Read With Malice Toward None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln by Stephen B. Oates.

And then the liberal will tell you we wanted oil. I don't know, I figure we could have bought it from Saddam. When we point out that the war is about oil we mean the power that comes from controlling the oil flow. There is only one person in Bush’s Cabinet who was never an oil executive. They want control of the world’s oil – not so that U.S. consumer will pay less at the pump, but to enrich themselves and augment their personal power.

My point is, if you say the issue was the reason of the war, instead of the principle of what was happening, you can't be that bright of a logistic. Wow. That's so fucked up I should have it framed. It reminds me of how H.L. Mencken described Warren G. Harding’s speeches: "Harding writes the worst English I have ever encountered; it reminds me of a string of wet sponges, college yells, stale bean soup and dogs barking idiotically into the night. It is so bad a kind of grandeur creeps into it." Unfortunately your prose and logic only gets worse from there.

Whether the south wanted to expand slavery or not, what the war was fought over was the union boa around their neck, constricting that freedom from them. More conservative Newspeak: freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom.

The black man dawning that grey uniform gave his life for his family, his master, because his master treated him kindly and with respect, and fed him, and let him live ... and that was the only life he knew, and he was willing to die for it. So if one is so bold to stick their finger out and say "Look at those stupid republican southerns back there, fighting and dying for something as inmoral and stupid as slavery," I'd beg you to rethink your logic once again. Okay, first of all, they wouldn’t be Republicans because a) Republicans were the party of Lincoln and b) slaves couldn’t vote, so they wouldn't be registered with any political party. Both those points should be fairly obvious to anyone with logical faculties. Second, the myth of black slaves fighting for the Confederacy is just that: a myth. Some units were hastily thrown together shortly before Appomattox while the Confederate government was fleeing. They promised freedom in exchange for service, which was a rather empty offer considering that Lincoln had already issued the Proclamation of Emancipation and everyone knew the South was losing. They never saw combat. Likely they would have done what very many white Confederate units did and joined the Yankees: Sherman’s Army actually got larger as it moved deeper into the south. Armies don’t usually get larger moving through supposedly hostile territory. So much for "The Solid South".

Animals don't fight wars. Monsters may start them, but they're always fought and decided on a human principle of whats right.So there are no unjust wars fought for greed? However, in this particular case you are right. After all, the South lost so the war was in fact finally decided on what was right.

The principle was the freedom of the individual and the region, not the color of a man's skin, not the want and desire for oppression. The principle was the freedom of the individual, including those individuals who just happen to have black skin.

Animals don't fight wars.
Yes, they do. Read Demonic Males.