The Civil War - The version they don't teach in school

A nation where a portion of it wants to tear itself away at will isn't a viable nation to begin with.

Baseless strawman. Absolutely untrue - there is nothing in the Constitution about

Incorrect. They are still very relevent today, as I showed quite a few times in the OP...the OP that you didn't read.

Good thing I'm not a "conservative", so your point that I am trying to bring it back is way off base.

Your continuous contempt for the Constitution makes me believe that it is you who hates the USA.

Yes, because we are not indivisible. That is anti-Constitutional propaganda. If you think it should be illegal for the states to secede, write to your Congressman to introduce an amendment.

Aside from its Constitutional duties, what has the government done for me that I couldn't do for myself?

Ah, the old "grow up and become mature and content with the establishment - it has given you so much you ungreatful, unpatriotic American" neo-con argument. You're as predictable as the sunrise.

 

I think you're gravitating in the right direction. But to put things in better context, it's important to understand that the entire nation's economy was dependent on slavery which is why Lincoln went to war, not to end slavery but restore the status quo. Ships were built in New York and Boston harbors. The slave trade was run from northern states and New York, as a city, became very rich and powerful because it was the financial epicenter of this industry. It's fair to say that every part of the country had equal guilt in the sin of slavery and that the Union had no more moral clout than the southern states; especially when you consider that many Northern states had slaves themselves and had only recently abolished the practice before the war started.

 

Of course...but compromising individual liberty harms both the individual and the greater number. Collectivism is a self-destructive hypocrisy. Society cannot function if people are not selfish. Economic progress and prosperity occurs when people are selfishly motivated.

Completely wrong. The Constitution is riddled with the principles of Individualism. It's inherently anti-Collectivist.

Equating Constitutional individualism with "frontier mentality" is invalid. Just another way for you to make your argument look stronger, with lame strawman points.

Hopelessly clueless. Nobody is trying to tyrannize us as individuals? Come on dude, you can't be serious.

You can't consider the public good if you're not considering the good of the individual.

Because libertarians don't want to control people like statists do. How do you not realize this? Derp de derp!

 

I did make an argument, it is not my fault other people are ignorant of the civil war documents I am referencing!! I will here link to the declaration of secession of South Carolina.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


I will paste all the references to slavery

It is nearly the entire document!!


Now here are the references to tariffs


.............


Pretty equal huh? This gibberish about slavery not being the key issue is simply denial of objective realities!! It shows an incredible ignorance of history, which I cannot rectify on my own. It is beholden on the historically ignorant to educate themselves. Not on me, to educate them!!

 

Lol. I don't read neo-confederate websites. You're the one who is in denial, you can't even debunk any of the facts in the OP. You were left speechless so your natural defense mechanisms have come up to preserve your shattered ego.

Why, because you're incapable of doing it yourself? You know nothing...you only pretend to know. Why don't you try debunking my OP?

 

We are getting closer ! As to Slavery itself as a factor, I did specifically note that it was the underlying agitator throughout. Going all the way back to the Quaker Resolutions in Congress in 1790 (I am doing this off-the-cuff), which were qute the brouhaha at the time, the arguments pro-and-con slavery were set then, and never varied that much again through all the Compromise debates, etc.

The War was unique in that it was about politics. Fueled by economic disparity caused by politics. It was not about a land grab. Or resource grab. Or settling an old score. The SOuth felt it had been ripped off by the North in tariffs-taxes, at least until 1857, and now it was going to happen again with Republicans taking the reins. Politicians got folks all worked up, and there was a show of force without any real casualties ..... but then folks huffed and puffed for real, and blood was spilt in quantity, and it was game-on.

What I like to point out to folks is the politics-economics that led to the '58 midterms, where the die was cast. Buchanan is considered our worst President as he essentially did nothing, creating the results in '58, and then again did nothing which enabled to political polarity of the 1860 elections. Which laid the foundation for War, and slavery was not the cause.

I cannot embrace the slavery motivation as you have. I have also read extensively on all of this, and do not see it. It was a factor in drumming up the politics of war, but the War itself happened when it did because the South rejected the looming re-imposition of tariffs, and loss of Senate representation, signaled by the rise of the Republican Party with the election of Lincoln. And the North responded by sending folks to be massacred and routed at Manassas. IMMHO.

 

We stopped importing slaves in 1808.

 

Care to point out what "exaggerations" you're referring to? Or are you intentionally being vague?

I was certainly not taught this in high school. You think high schools teach students about the history and economic impact of fiat currency in the United States?

 

And the heart of the internal slave-trade after that point was Virginia, "down the river" into the cotton-states. The northern states had little economic interests in the slave-trade itself by 1830 or so(though they certainly had interests in slave plantations as a method of production). So you are correct, the external slave trade ended in 1808, and so did the major role of northern states in the slave trade(of course some northerners were still involved, but it was hardly an important source of income for northern states by the time the civil war came around).

 

Yes. They do. As a high school student, you have to enroll in classes that provide more in depth descriptions and analysis for a variety of subjects. These classes are known as Advanced Placement. Unfortunately, NCLB has lowered the standards for retention of basic knowledge.

 

As a product of his times, Lincoln was, indeed, a white supremacist.

In Lincoln's own words:

"[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

It almost sounds like the declaration of the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan...

 

Care to explain my ignorance? I'm sorry that my points shattered your world view and your response is just a defense mechanism to sustain your fragile ego, but your say-so against my facts is not good enough for an effective debate.

 

Yes. But what he was able to do was set aside his personal views in favor of his party's political ambitions (i.e. free-soil).

 

The history I was taught of the Civil War in high school, was that the civil war was about states rights!! I was taught the same in 8th grade US history as well. It wasn't until college, when I read all the primary source documents, that I realized that the civil war was in fact about slavery!!

 

Abolishing slavery was a Lincoln afterthought to please the British.

I thought everyone knew that.

 

Advanced Placement United States history had its advantages. You were able to read and analyze primary documents. I honestly wish that I made copies from the book we used. I'm no longer able to cite the smaller details off the top of my head.

With primary documents, you were truly able to eliminate any misconceptions, and separate what was historical fact from historical opinion, despite exorbitant subjectivity in the overall subject.

 

I took AP history in high school, but there were 2 such classes!! AP government as a junior, which I took. And AP European history as a senior, which I also took. I could have taken AP US history as a Sophomore, but I went to 2 different high school. I took what was called honors US history there, but it wasn't an advanced placement course. So a bit different.

 

The reason the Civil War happened was that two different societies had evolved inside the United States of America, and the North had the advantage and was gaining more of an advantage. Not only was there a larger population in the North than in the South, but more jobs were being created in the North and that was also attracting the overwhelming share of immigrants to the USA (many of whom were also leery of slavery).

The South was indeed victimized by the Tariffs, but that was NOT the true cause of the war and NEITHER was the issue of slavery so overwhelming that civil war was inevitable. The real cause of the Civil War was the South realized that Northern power (politically, economically AND socially) was starting to overpower the South and the demographics of the situation guaranteed it would only get worse (and also guarantee virtually all western territories would become Free States when they achieved statehood and thus dominated by the North).

Rather than see their way of life slowly come to an end, the elite of the South easily persuaded Southerners that the way forward was to have their own country which would preserve their peculiar institutions. By doing so, they put the South through much more suffering than the North would ever have done had the South not attempted to secede!

 

When the CW started slavery was still legal and common in washington DC, the capitol of the north!!!! Historians are brazenly lying when they say the war was about freeing the slaves.

 

Well, I can respect that, as I used to lean more that way. But if ever so inclined, look at the Tariff of 1857, which lowered prior tariffs, was a boon to the South, but a curse to the North, especially NJ and PA, as it allowed lower-priced Euro manufactured goods in again. Then look to how this impacted politics in 1858, essentially the warm-up for Republicans taking power in 1860. We had the collapse of midwest food-stuff exports as well, due to the end of the Crimean War and the recovery of agriculture in Europe that resulted, which also put enormous revenue pressures of the Federal Government. All that set the table for the War, and slavery had not a thing to do with it.

Agree or disagree with me, but it was a very interesting time

 

I agree, that it was very interesting!! I also concede that tariff issues were important, they just weren't the key issue. Tariffs combined with a series of other regional political differences to exacerbate the conflict, but it was ultimately the differences over the issue of slavery that led directly to the war.

 

The parallels between our government today and our government 150 years ago.

The South did not have half the senate. They had 15/33 which put them in the minority.

Meanwhile? You're talking about things which occured years apart. The Union blockade didn't happen until after the civil war started.

The South did not start the war. The Union army did not pull out of Fort Sumter after South Carolina declared itself no longer part of the United States. That means they were an invading, occupying army, and the Confederate Army had every right to protect itself from invasion.

Explained in the OP.

Why on Earth would they ever do that? Slaves WERE their economy.

Disproven by the OP.

I disagree, for reasons stated in the OP. The south would have adopted the technology that the north had, which would have rendered slave labor obsolete. I also disagree that there is even a possibility that slavery would still exist in the US.

 

We could debate exactly where slavery fits in forever. But I noted once or twice earlier that the War could have been avoided IMMHO, and it is where Buchanan earns his credentials as the worst President ever. And it has to do with economics and tariffs, and not Slavery.

Buchanan was a do-nothing. He was a do-nothing in 1857 and '58, causing a midterm uprising that shaped the final political divide between North and South. That divide was essentially finalized by the Panic of '57, and the economic lines it drew, which then festered. After the '58 midterms, he essentially still did nothing. So we coasted right into the '60 election, where Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern States. Most of them anyway. That pretty much means secession will happen.

Had Buchanan been more responsive, and astute, I believe that "Slavery" does not burst into the Civil War in 1861. And that it begins its fade before 1870. No war.

 

I was most certainly not taught most of the OP in school. States rights only became an issue because of the economic issues that the north was forcing the south to go through. States rights would not have been an issue if the Southern states hadn't wanted to secede.

 

Can you please tell me what time tables are off?